# What your TV licence money goes on..



## RogerS (12 Dec 2013)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... paign=1490

apologies it is from the Mail.

Just finished watching Lucan. Brilliant drama. But on ITV. Once upon a time one would have watched decent drama like this on the BBC. Once upon a time.

Too busy sending people around the world.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 Dec 2013)

Years ago I worked in a fifty bedroom hotel when Ian Botham did a John o'Groats - Lands end walk. The ITV had three rooms, the BBC forty seven.


----------



## thick_mike (12 Dec 2013)

"BBC sent THREE TIMES as many staff to cover Mandela death than all rival British broadcasters combined"

Beautiful use of the English language :roll: ...I'm sure that if this enmanglement of Her Majesty's English language had occurred on the beeb the Mail would have been having a go at them for that too.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 Dec 2013)

Yes... but it doesn't alter the fact.


----------



## thick_mike (13 Dec 2013)

True...plenty of jollies at the Beeb. They brag about it too on their Radio 5 trails...sending presenters round the world at the drop of a hat. It is a gravy train.

It's just I hate the Daily mail as much as they hate the BBC. I can't resist sticking the knife in.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Dec 2013)

The main difference is that you don't have to buy the Mail if you choose to read something else, but you do have to pay for the BBC if you want to watch something else.


----------



## thick_mike (13 Dec 2013)

True, but the BBC does actually produce something positive (Sherlock, Luther, The Thick of it, endless Attenborough docs, QI, most of BBC four, Radio 4, Radio 6 Music etc.). I'd rather pay £3 a week for that than £60 a month for Sky and endless adverts, but I appreciate that many do not agree.

The Daily Mail is just a black hole of negativity and bigotry, whose main aim appears to be to terrify people so that they daren't set foot outside their front door, but again many will not agree with that either!


----------



## MMUK (13 Dec 2013)

Yet another reason why I sent my TV license back four years ago. And I've not missed it one bit!


----------



## RogerS (13 Dec 2013)

MMUK":3mgqa0v5 said:


> Yet another reason why I sent my TV license back four years ago. And I've not missed it one bit!



But I bet the TV Licensing SS are still hassling you to get one!


----------



## MMUK (13 Dec 2013)

RogerS":2xirm2sg said:


> MMUK":2xirm2sg said:
> 
> 
> > Yet another reason why I sent my TV license back four years ago. And I've not missed it one bit!
> ...


 

When I was renting yes every few weeks. Once I bought though and sent them a letter revoking their right of access to my property, they've not dared hassle me :mrgreen:


----------



## Rhossydd (13 Dec 2013)

thick_mike":2dfao3f5 said:


> True...plenty of jollies at the Beeb.


Really ? How do you know that ? Any actual experience of working for the BBC ?

I despair of people giving the Daily Mail any credence at all, it's appalling.
Do they work out how much the coverage costs and seeing who is more efficient ?
Do they compare the number of people other major international broadcasters sent ?
Do they even bother to point out it's not all funded by the licence fee anyway ?


----------



## Chippygeoff (13 Dec 2013)

I resent paying such a high fee for a TV licence to watch what is mostly rubbish. I gave up my TV years ago and every week I would get a threatening letter saying things like, we will come to your address when you least expect us or we are monitoring your area and we are going to visit you in the next few days. I do however have about a 100 channels on my computer and now and again watch a good documentary or a good film.


----------



## nanscombe (13 Dec 2013)

Perhaps the BBC had a bit more work to do than ITV, Channel 4 and 5.



> According to The Times, ITV and Channel 4 sent nine people to cover the event in South Africa, while Channel 5 sent four.
> 
> A BBC spokesman told MailOnline: 'Over ten days we’ve deployed around *120 journalists, technicians and support staff* for this huge international story.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cottonwood (13 Dec 2013)

thick_mike":5hv6f2rt said:


> True, but the BBC does actually produce something positive (Sherlock, Luther, The Thick of it, endless Attenborough docs, QI, most of BBC four, Radio 4, Radio 6 Music etc.). I'd rather pay £3 a week for that than £60 a month for Sky and endless adverts, but I appreciate that many do not agree.



I personally find bbc output to be almost without exception to be politically partial, biased, patronising, infantilising, condescending, know it all, holier than thou, middle class, hypocritical etc etc. If _you_ like paying "£3 a week" for your "positive" content thats fine, but _I_ dont like being legally compelled to pay for it as well (me subsidise your viewing habits) when I have zero interest in it...
LOL you can just imagine the "outerage" if all the middle class liberal humanists of Bwitain were legally compelled to buy a copy of the daily mail every dayy......


----------



## Mark-numbers (13 Dec 2013)

It's 3 quid a week!


----------



## Sheffield Tony (13 Dec 2013)

The Mandela coverage was excessive. But news coverage often is. I don't understand why a story about the PM means someone needs to be sent to stand in Downing street to read it either.

But - I'm happy to pay my license fee. If it were not for the BBC, I would have no need for a TV.


----------



## mailee (13 Dec 2013)

Well I view the BBC like all the rest of the channels....rubbish! I agree when they do make a documentary or a drama they are very good quality but they are very few and far between. Instead they turn out fly on the wall documentaries, cooking programs, and any other rubbish they think they can get away with! I for one am not interested in celebrities eating worms in a jungle or watching people watching TV! There news programs are overkill and if they put all that effort into 'real' programs we could have some good entertainment. I have given up counting the amount of repeats they all show I guess they must buy a job lot of them for a knock down price and just keep putting them on until the VT is worn out! :evil:


----------



## thick_mike (13 Dec 2013)

Cottonwood":wb20ywda said:


> thick_mike":wb20ywda said:
> 
> 
> > True, but the BBC does actually produce something positive (Sherlock, Luther, The Thick of it, endless Attenborough docs, QI, most of BBC four, Radio 4, Radio 6 Music etc.). I'd rather pay £3 a week for that than £60 a month for Sky and endless adverts, but I appreciate that many do not agree.
> ...



Thanks for subsidising my viewing comrade


----------



## thick_mike (13 Dec 2013)

I'm not a regular reader of the Daily Heil, but did they run a similar story about BBC blanket coverage when Maggie died?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Dec 2013)

EDIT


----------



## RogerS (13 Dec 2013)

Interesting set of views here. Given that there is a dearth of good stuff on the box I was wondering about a thread where folk could alert people to something good ? I wouldn't want it to degenerate into "No, I think it's rubbish" " No, it is good" frenzy because I think it reasonable to ask for a positive thread without any negative bile.


----------



## RogerS (13 Dec 2013)

Rhossydd":3vrxfwu2 said:


> thick_mike":3vrxfwu2 said:
> 
> 
> > True...plenty of jollies at the Beeb.
> ...


I did. And I saw jollies. I even remember having a letter published in Ariel about the jollies. At a time when we had a pay freeze and were haemorrhaging technical staff to the commercial companies.


Rhossydd":3vrxfwu2 said:


> I despair of people giving the Daily Mail any credence at all, it's appalling.


I agree it is appalling but that doesn't diminish the figures provided surely?


Rhossydd":3vrxfwu2 said:


> Do they work out how much the coverage costs and seeing who is more efficient ?


Possibly not. Are you able to? How do you work it out? If you say that the wall-to-wall coverage of Saint Nelson justified sending that many people and so if you work out the hours broadcast per person then I would say that that was wrong simply because the saturation coverage was totally unnecessary. The day after you couldn't find a channel on the BBC that wasn't doing something about Mandela. So many of those channels will have popped people on a plane.


Rhossydd":3vrxfwu2 said:


> Do they compare the number of people other major international broadcasters sent ?


Nine from ITV allegedly.


Rhossydd":3vrxfwu2 said:


> Do they even bother to point out it's not all funded by the licence fee anyway ?


Perhaps you can tell us the other funding arrangements ?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Dec 2013)

I think the BBC decided that we should be interested in Mandela's funeral - that is their political inclination. I know of no one that was remotely interested.


----------



## Rhossydd (13 Dec 2013)

RogerS":1qmt5fdg said:


> I did. And I saw jollies.


Lucky you.
All the foreign trips I did(and do) for the BBC are damn hard work. Jolly is rarely a term used by the people who actually have to go abroad and work.


> Possibly not. Are you able to? How do you work it out?


Well you could start by working out the air time and dividing it by the number of staff it takes. You've said yourself there was a lot of coverage that _you_ saw, we in the UK only see a part of the whole amount transmitted.


Rhossydd":1qmt5fdg said:


> Do they compare the number of people other major international broadcasters sent ?


Nine from ITV allegedly.[/quote]
ITV an international broadcaster ? Come on, they don't register on the global scale. Look at the teams sent by ABC or NBC, on most major events they end up sending as many as ten times as many staff as the BBC for much less coverage.


Rhossydd":1qmt5fdg said:



> Do they even bother to point out it's not all funded by the licence fee anyway ?


Perhaps you can tell us the other funding arrangements ?[/quote]
The UK Government subsidises a lot of the international output, World service, world news etc. It's not as simple as 'Licence payer's money' on such wide ranging events as this.


----------



## JustBen (13 Dec 2013)

What has everyone got against the Daily Mail?
Yes they lie, yes they spew twaddle but doesn't every other paper?
I don't believe there is a single paper in the world that speaks only the truth and doesn't glorify news.
Btw, I don't read papers, they're all full of trash.

I do think the licence fees are high, but I soon forget about it when I see clarkson and his gang of merry men acting the fool.


----------



## Karl (13 Dec 2013)

benjimano":1e1skb45 said:


> I do think the licence fees are high, but I soon forget about it when I see clarkson and his gang of merry men acting the fool.



Whilst I disagree, one of my 8 year olds shares your sentiments about TG - he loves it ! If he knew what a licence fee was, he'd approve :lol: 

Cheers

Karl


----------



## KevM (13 Dec 2013)

I watched a reasonable amount of the coverage,although not all of it, in fact just sufficient for me. I suppose I should point out that I had, rather fortunately as it turns out, treated myself to one of those fancy Japanese TVs with a remote control channel changing facility and an off button.


----------



## mailee (13 Dec 2013)

KevM":y63zc6do said:


> I watched a reasonable amount of the coverage,although not all of it, in fact just sufficient for me. I suppose I should point out that I had, rather fortunately as it turns out, treated myself to one of those fancy Japanese TVs with a remote control channel changing facility and an off button.


Problem with that is that the remote doesn't stop the licence fee. :lol:


----------



## fetteler (14 Dec 2013)

Rhossydd":1yo7r5kr said:


> RogerS":1yo7r5kr said:
> 
> 
> > I did. And I saw jollies.
> ...


ITV an international broadcaster ? Come on, they don't register on the global scale. Look at the teams sent by ABC or NBC, on most major events they end up sending as many as ten times as many staff as the BBC for much less coverage.


Rhossydd":1yo7r5kr said:


> Do they even bother to point out it's not all funded by the licence fee anyway ?


Perhaps you can tell us the other funding arrangements ?[ /quote]
The UK Government subsidises a lot of the international output, World service, world news etc. It's not as simple as 'Licence payer's money' on such wide ranging events as this.
[/quote]





Well said. I have to simply agree with your rebuttal of the negative comments as I am so angered by the criticism of the BBC here that I can't be reasonable at the moment. The appreciation by the general public of what goes into public service broadcasting never fails to underwhelm me.

Crikey. 

Steve.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Dec 2013)

The BBC is nothing more than the PR department of the Guardian, and would go broke in the real world. That we have to pay a licence fee to fund the BBC when we wish watch other channels is beyond justification, and completely ludicrous.


----------



## rafezetter (14 Dec 2013)

Rhossydd":3huhajg7 said:


> ITV an international broadcaster ? Come on, they don't register on the global scale. Look at the teams sent by ABC or NBC, on most major events they end up sending as many as ten times as many staff as the BBC for much less coverage.



Those broadcasters you mention are not paid by taxpayers FORCED to pay or face fines; confiscation of property or even jail - enough said.



Rhossydd":3huhajg7 said:


> The UK Government subsidises a lot of the international output, World service, world news etc. It's not as simple as 'Licence payer's money' on such wide ranging events as this.



And just how many of UK residents actually USE the international / world service output to other countries? I'd safely hazard a minute fraction of the people being taxed for it.



Mark-numbers":3huhajg7 said:


> It's 3 quid a week!



How many charities say they can make life altering changes to less fortunate people for this amount - now imagine all those to do not wish to pay for a TV licence giving it to them instead... LOTS of £3's per week in the right place could do wonders.

I personally watch only a few of the BBC programs output, and feel if they had to fight for their market share like all the others do maybe some things would change for the better - even actors and such on tv have the quote "well it_ IS _the BBC" - usually in a slightly disparaging tone, and they rely on the BBC to pay them. When even those who's livelihoods rely on money from said company still disparage it, you _KNOW_ something's amiss.


----------



## MIGNAL (14 Dec 2013)

£3 per week to a charity. £2.90 per week on admin/wages. They aren't anything to write home about, believe me. 
Licence, subscription, advertising costs. We all pay, one way or the other. It's actually near on impossible to avoid paying for the advertising levy. At £3 per week I happen to think that the beeb is pretty good value for money. I don't watch a great deal of TV but I simply can't listen to commercial radio. I also think the beeb website is one of the best on the entire net, pretty comprehensive and it's highly thought of throughout the world.


----------



## RogerS (14 Dec 2013)

Ssshh..perhaps I'd better not mention the £100 MILLION write-off of that bungled IT system.

Or the utterly incompetent BBC Trust led by that fat egregious buffoon Fattie Pattie

Or the total dumbing down of Classic FM-Lite.....aka Radio 3


----------



## MIGNAL (14 Dec 2013)

Everyone has bungled IT systems. Par for the course for anything to do with IT. It's just that the big systems for the public organisations get all the publicity about it. 
 You mean Classic FM is better :shock: Lol!!! Everytime my dial zooms past Classic FM they are playing the Four seasons! Again and again and . . . you get the idea. It's sickly. Commercial radio. No thanks.


----------



## MMUK (14 Dec 2013)

MIGNAL":24kf1c1e said:


> Everyone has bungled IT systems. Par for the course for anything to do with IT. It's just that the big systems for the public organisations get all the publicity about it.
> You mean Classic FM is better :shock: Lol!!! Everytime my dial zooms past Classic FM they are playing the Four seasons! Again and again and . . . you get the idea. It's sickly. Commercial radio. No thanks.




You obviously don't tune in that often then. I'm a regular listener and I've only heard Four Seasons once in the past week.


----------



## Cottonwood (14 Dec 2013)

phil.p":17nqj2ne said:


> I think the BBC decided that we should be interested in Mandela's funeral - that is their political inclination.



Thats about it. The bbc is for mummys boys-Mummy knows best :roll: The bbc seem to have very fixed and determined views on all the "issues" of the day, that-in the public interest-we the people should unquestioningly adopt. They no longer do reasonable robust debate (as happened when I was younger), allowing real unstaged face to face conflict of difficult opposing views (Because THEIR position might get undermined and the nation might be exposed to awful nasty non bbc ideas) Instead we get yet another sanitised mummys boy spouting yet another patronising lecture-ie the bbc's version of the "facts".

Its so funny, to hear some mummys boys speak youd think the d m journos were all raving liars-and they probaly are :lol: . But did anyone ever stop to think that bbc people might lie too, or distort facts to make their point? Are their any liars working for the guardian or the telegraph or the independent? The people of Liverpool know about the sun. Do they all tell the truth? LOL Or is it just that when someone is having their socio-political prejudices reinforced, it dont matter if they are told a few "white lies"?

I do not "value" the bbc one iota :lol: . It smacks of desperation to be lectured in a condescending manner that I SHOULD do. If the bbc was that good, it wouldnt need to keep telling us how wonderful it is as an organisation, we would know it already. I mean, they cant even be bothered to pay out to cover England rugby games during the A I's :roll: ....
Even so I wouldnt object to their existence-apart from the fact that, legally, I have to pay an inane license fee every year to subsidise it.


----------



## Rhossydd (14 Dec 2013)

phil.p":3e7ttrpk said:


> The BBC is nothing more than the PR department of the Guardian,


As a previous DG said;
When the right think the BBC is left biased and the left think it's right biased, we've got it right.

Do you really want to be left to your own devices and get left with free market television ?
Travel abroad and watch TV a bit, see how much it costs and what the quality is like, then come back and have a considered view having seen the alternative.


----------



## MickCheese (14 Dec 2013)

Chippygeoff":3dn5jaq9 said:


> I do however have about a 100 channels on my computer and now and again watch a good documentary or a good film.



Out of interest would I need a licence to watch catchup TV on the computer?

Mick


----------



## RogerS (14 Dec 2013)

MickCheese":2gbu3pne said:


> Chippygeoff":2gbu3pne said:
> 
> 
> > I do however have about a 100 channels on my computer and now and again watch a good documentary or a good film.
> ...



No you don't. Only to watch BBC in realtime on your computer (or mobile phone, for that matter)


----------



## RogerS (14 Dec 2013)

Rhossydd":c2bd2bjl said:


> phil.p":c2bd2bjl said:
> 
> 
> > The BBC is nothing more than the PR department of the Guardian,
> ...



Well, we do have free market TV in this country, surely? ITV, Channel 4, Five and of course Sky.

Once upon a time I would have been in agreement with your points but not these days. The BBC is unaccountable. The BBC Trust is an inept inadequate feeble nepotistic bunch of numpties. 

As for the BBC, we find that there is less and less of their offerings to be bothered watching. Where have all the good comedies gone? Watching Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads reminded us of just how good the BBC was once upon a time. 

Their flagship topical affairs radio programme Today has gone as sensationalist as the Daily Mail. For example, yesterday when the report into GP practices came out, they mentioned the maggots which the author of the report took great pains to point out was 1 instance. Yes, there should not be maggots in a doctor's surgery. But the BBC blew this up all out of proportion and it featured in every news item later that day. Pure tabloid journalism.

The same programme trivialised what could have been a proper report into the whole issue about DAB and the suggested FM Switchoff.


----------



## Rhossydd (14 Dec 2013)

RogerS":38t7zvr6 said:


> Where have all the good comedies gone? Watching Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads reminded us of just how good the BBC was once upon a time.


The likely lads funny ? I guess Live at the Apollo won't appeal then.


----------



## RogerS (14 Dec 2013)

Rhossydd":3sdy1pmi said:


> RogerS":3sdy1pmi said:
> 
> 
> > Where have all the good comedies gone? Watching Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads reminded us of just how good the BBC was once upon a time.
> ...



Depends on the line-up.


----------



## Cottonwood (14 Dec 2013)

Rhossydd":3nwwclw7 said:


> Do you really want to be left to your own devices and get left with free market television ?



That is so typical of the patronising attitude of the average bbc luvvie-their ingrained assumption that if you resent the bbc and fail to appreciate its alleged "value", then you must by default be an avid tory xenophobic fan of sky or whatever, and that without the bbc the western world will fall apart and descend into anarchy.... :lol: Thinking about it, maybe its actually the bbc that is the LAST to recognise that Britain isnt the global world power that it once was, they certainly still have big delusions about being a global media business player. Personally I find much of youtube to be 100's of times more engaging, entertaining and informative than anything that is produced by any of the tv industry manufacturers-commercial, independent, "public service" or otherwise-much more interesting, inventive and (mostly) far less pretentious. And its another reason why the bbc is so pernicious, because as a organisation it simply refuses to leave people to their own devices and make up their own minds after real debate, but sees fit as a socio political organisation to inetrfere in "opinion forming" etc by relentlessly promoting the "correct" (LOL) bbc line....Besides the bbc _is_ a free market organisation, because they make profit from global business enterprises, that are subsidised by the license fee. Yet they still try to delude themselves and everyone else that they are an impartial public service broadcaster, and still take the extorted license fee off people regardless.


----------



## KevM (14 Dec 2013)

Cottonwood":2a11bjtt said:


> Yet they still try to delude themselves and everyone else that they are an impartial public service broadcaster, and still take the extorted license fee off people regardless.



So long as the BBC continue to provoke this sort of reaction I'd say they're doing a fine job. :lol: Note how the smiley makes that statement less offensive. :lol: 

If it looks like an ill-mannered political squabble, swims like an ill-mannered political squabble, and quacks like an ill-mannered political squabble then it probably is an ill-mannered political squabble.


----------



## Losos (14 Dec 2013)

mailee":1jjan08c said:


> Well I view the BBC like all the rest of the channels....rubbish! I agree when they do make a documentary or a drama they are very good quality but they are very few and far between. Instead they turn out fly on the wall documentaries, cooking programs, and any other rubbish they think they can get away with! I for one am not interested in celebrities eating worms in a jungle or watching people watching TV! There news programs are overkill and if they put all that effort into 'real' programs we could have some good entertainment. I have given up counting the amount of repeats they all show I guess they must buy a job lot of them for a knock down price and just keep putting them on until the VT is worn out! :evil:



Well said, *agree with all of that*, and I have (over the years) come across various BBC employees and in the main they are conceited, patronising, and without doubt politically biased. It was *once upon a time* a great organisation and when I was in communist controlled Eastern Europe in the sixties it did a great job, but like many companies it has *lost it's way* and has been forced to cater for the lowest common denominator which thankfully Mailee and I are *not* part of :lol:


----------



## Losos (14 Dec 2013)

Rhossydd":3esxuje3 said:


> The UK Government subsidises a lot of the international output, *World service*, world news etc.



I'm surprised you even mention the so called 'World Service' *have you ever listed to it in recent years*, all it comprises of these days is a radio version of 'Top of the Pops' with requests from darkest Africa for the latest pop group of kids yelling and screaming into a microphone. Some news from various world locations (Hardly ever anything about the UK) the weather in Outer Mongolia or similar (Again not very often the UK) interviews with people from all sorts of countries (Yet again, hardly ever a UK based person)

*It's a complete joke.* I used to take my short wave radio when I visited Eastern Europe in the sixties and always tuned in to the BBC World Service. I still visit there but I *don't bother taking my short wave radio any more*, complete waste of time, yet it is from my taxes that these *useless, stupid, politically biased, programmes are made.*

And just for the record, in the sixties I *ALWAYS* had people asking me what the BBC World Service was saying, now in the past 15 years *NO ONE* has ever asked me about the BBC World Service.

Everyone who works in this part of the BBC should be given their P45 and the whole thing shut down, it does no good to anyone anywhere.


----------



## RogerS (14 Dec 2013)

Losos, I think that you might find seven million Iranians disagreeing with you for a start as that is the number who tune in and an increase of 85% over three years. World listening figures are estimated at 241 million. Not bad going. Now that it comes out of the licence fee, it equates to 2p per day per household which is pretty damn good value IMO.


----------



## MIGNAL (14 Dec 2013)

What's with all the bold type? Feelings of inadequacy?


----------



## KevM (14 Dec 2013)

MIGNAL":11cx41j3 said:


> What's with all the bold type? Feelings of inadequacy?


 It was all the other rot in between the *bold* and CAPITALs of Losos' rant that concerned me, it suggested delusions of adequacy.


----------



## JustBen (14 Dec 2013)

So much anger and hatred.


----------



## MIGNAL (14 Dec 2013)

Strange is it not. Instead of the Brits celebrating having their very own TV/Radio 'company' some (largely from the right) want to be rid of it. No doubt to be taken over by johnny foreigners like the politically impartial Murdoch and Burlusconi :shock: (shudder the thought). Don't worry, I doubt they'll be hacking your TV set and I'm sure you'll all enjoy Silvio's good time girls. Maybe Mr. Chelski is interested in running it as his play thing. Let it go the way of our energy and water companies - that way we really could be European. Wouldn't really matter if we were in the EU. We would be owned by them anyway. 
Right. I'm off to watch bid TV for a few hours. Then a few repeats of Mr. Springer. Try it Roger, Losos et al. I'm pretty sure you'll really enjoy it. None of that lefty political rubbish to put up with. TV doesn't get much better.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Dec 2013)

If it were taken over by Murdoch, it would undoubtedly be more politically impartial than it is now.


----------



## MIGNAL (14 Dec 2013)

True. The Beeb has really lurched to the right since Cameron came in. Maybe Murdoch could put Rebekah at the head of it after she has done her stint. Is our Rebekah English? Might disqualify her, her being born here. But don't underestimate Burlusconi or Mr. Chelski. Couple of nice guy heavyweights when it comes to running a business. In fact the whole lot of them would be great for UK TV. PLC. irrespective of the fact that they should all be behind bars! Far better than the current Beeb types.  
PMS fng.L


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Dec 2013)

Yes, it's lurched that far to the right that it is the biggest single buyer of The Guardian. :lol:


----------



## MIGNAL (14 Dec 2013)

. . . and every single British PM from Thatcher onwards have told Murdoch to F.O. :shock: 
No Political bias there then.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Dec 2013)

Superb non sequitur.


----------



## KevM (14 Dec 2013)

phil.p":prmcla15 said:


> Superb non sequitur.


Indeed, you have made a non sequitur. What is your point?


----------



## KevM (14 Dec 2013)

phil.p":3dyxxl6b said:


> Yes, it's lurched that far to the right that it is the biggest single buyer of The Guardian. :lol:


are you playing the smiley allows a moronic comment card, or do you have some evidence for this? Thought not.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Dec 2013)

It's not a moronic comment - google it. Mustn't let facts get in the way of a left wing rant, must we?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Dec 2013)

Anyway, this becoming futile. Good night. On this thread, anyway.


----------



## KevM (14 Dec 2013)

Left wing rant? I was simply asking for the evidence to support your claim, methinks the lady doth protest too much.
edit: interestingly I just did your suggested Google, it came back with "phil.p is a paranoid fantasist" - spooky how accurate search engines can be these days.


----------



## KevM (14 Dec 2013)

phil.p":2kusbtbj said:


> Anyway, this becoming futile. Good night. On this thread, anyway.


Translation : I've got no evidence to support my assertions, so I'm going to pretend to be above this.[fx: sound of chicken squawking] :lol:


----------



## Paddywack (15 Dec 2013)

If people aren't happy with the way the licence fee is applied why not lobby an MP or write in to the BBC and complain, I haven't seen many posts on here from the Director General so it's hardly likely he will know how unhappy you are. My personnel view is Radio 4 is worth every penny of my licence fee and the rest I treat as a bonus.


----------



## RogerS (15 Dec 2013)

Paddywack":1pbk3sfw said:


> If people aren't happy with the way the licence fee is applied why not lobby an MP or write in to the BBC and complain, I haven't seen many posts on here from the Director General so it's hardly likely he will know how unhappy you are. My personnel view is Radio 4 is worth every penny of my licence fee and the rest I treat as a bonus.



It is a nice idea...if only the BBC actually paid any attention to what people are saying. They outsource their complaints handling to Capita and you get a standard bolierplate reply that basically says 'thank you for your comment blah blah blah'. I also know that that naff institution called the BBC Trust also ignore very valid comments and complaints. They truly redefine the idea of 'ostrich head in the sand'.


----------



## MMUK (15 Dec 2013)

Paddywack":5z0djnu6 said:


> If people aren't happy with the way the licence fee is applied why not lobby an MP or write in to the BBC and complain, I haven't seen many posts on here from the Director General so it's hardly likely he will know how unhappy you are. My personnel view is Radio 4 is worth every penny of my licence fee and the rest I treat as a bonus.




More to the point, it would be a better idea to send your license back and don't subscribe to the Beeb at all. After all, we don't NEED television, it's a luxury item. If they lose subscribers they would have to change their ways.

In any case, as long as you don't watch a program while it is being broadcast, you don't need a TV license. Just use iPlayer or YouTube instead. Assuming you can wait that is :wink: 

You'd be surprised how much of TV you won't miss at all.....


----------



## RogerS (15 Dec 2013)

That's an interesting point. If you wanted to watch something effectively 'live' then most PVR's let you pause live tv. So you pause for five seconds....then start watching. It's no longer live ergo no licence !!


----------



## LeeElms (15 Dec 2013)

I think the legal interpretation of 'live' includes you recording it to a PVR or whatever. Why that should be different to a catch up service is a mystery ...


----------



## RogerS (15 Dec 2013)

Ah..you're right..

Q: When do you need a licence? Do you need one for watching TV using an iPlayer?

A: You need a TV Licence to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on television, irrespective of what channel you're watching, what device you are using (TV, computer, laptop, mobile phone or any other), and how you receive them (terrestrial, satellite, cable, via the internet or any other way).

You do not need a TV Licence if you are watching TV after it has been shown on television, eg TV programmes downloaded or streamed after broadcast.


----------



## wellywood (16 Dec 2013)

Interesting thread this. My experience of the Beeb is almost 40 years old when it was an institution and broadcast 'quality' programmes. It sounds as though it's gone the way of much modern media (including that here in NZ) and is now aiming largely at the lowest common denominator - those with a 10 minute attention span.
Unfortunately, the suggestion that pressure could be brought to bear on them by discerning viewers/listeners rescinding their licence or scrapping their TV would just leave them broadcasting to the audience they are already aiming at.


----------



## AndyMenz (16 Dec 2013)

thick_mike":29sl2sny said:


> True, but the BBC does actually produce something positive (Sherlock, Luther, The Thick of it, endless Attenborough docs, QI, most of BBC four, Radio 4, Radio 6 Music etc.). I'd rather pay £3 a week for that than £60 a month for Sky and endless adverts, but I appreciate that many do not agree.
> 
> The Daily Mail is just a black hole of negativity and bigotry, whose main aim appears to be to terrify people so that they daren't set foot outside their front door, but again many will not agree with that either!




Very true - the Daily Mail are often calling for the BBC (in this time of commone we-are-all-in-it-together, belt tightening) to shut down a whole load of the outposts of the World Service. Surely we could looking at cutting things like BBC 1Extra or 4Extra, or all these damn 'Extras' that appear to offer nothing more than a watered down version of the original. 

It is not on the 'Extras' that we find Sherlock, Luther, The Thick of it, endless Attenborough docs, QI, most of BBC four, Radio 4, Radio 6 Music ...


----------



## renderer01 (16 Dec 2013)

I am probably quite wrong but if memory serves me, you are required to hold a TV licence if you have equipment capable of receiving TV or radio signal on your property. 
My attitude has always been its irrelevant how good or bad the beeb is, its the compulsory charge that is the problem if it was truly great all would want it anyway and be prepared to pay the asked price. But to remove in effect the right to watch other channels without funding the BBC is at best encouraging the prospect of a perpetual gravy train setup and at a time when everything else has to fight for survival 
Rend.


----------



## MMUK (16 Dec 2013)

renderer01":2r1csx3x said:


> I am probably quite wrong but if memory serves me, you are required to hold a TV licence if you have equipment capable of receiving TV or radio signal on your property.



The law was changed several years ago when TV was made widely available on the internet. It would mean that anyone who owned a PC with internet would need a TV license even if they didn't have a TV set. It was unenforceable anyway.

Another thing is the detector vans. Remember those? They were a con, they didn't work. There was no way that they could detect if you were receiving anaolgue signals in your household. I have that on very good authority from an expert in radio communications.


----------



## renderer01 (16 Dec 2013)

Thanks MMUK
Lol I read this once around 40 years ago.

Rend.


----------



## KevM (16 Dec 2013)

I suspect the TV detector vans had a kernel of truth, once upon a time. There were special efforts made with radio receivers on warships during WWII to prevent 're-broadcasting' of their local oscillators which could (potentially, although hard to imagine in a steel ship...) lead to detection, early TVs were pretty crude beasts so who knows. I heard an interesting observation a while back that may give a clue. Do you remember the last time you saw a TV detector van ad on TV? In 2004, regulation of UK TV ads was passed to the Advertising Standards Agency; their mission statement is "_to ensure that advertising in all media is legal, decent, honest and truthful, to the benefit of consumers, business and society_", coincidence?

Another piece of possibly (in)correct information that used to get thrown about was that the operating techniques and performance of TV detector vans was covered under the Official Secrets Act. It all feels a little bit Keyser Soze to me...


----------



## RogerS (16 Dec 2013)

This is an interesting website

http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2012 ... r-van.html


----------



## Jacob (16 Dec 2013)

Support the BBC. It's run by the state. *
In a democracy _we are_ the state. It's ours. 
It doesn't belong to Murdoch, or any other dodgy commercial cartels, or advertisers.
It's also trusted worldwide and is good for foreign policy etc.


* one of the weirdest bit of right wing b***x nowadays is popular support for "rolling back the state". In a democracy this means giving up *our* control of these things. Like turkeys voting for christmas.


----------



## bugbear (16 Dec 2013)

RogerS":3n31mgni said:


> This is an interesting website
> 
> http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2012 ... r-van.html



It's an obsessed person who thinks he's ever so important. "Anouncing" stuff etc.

BugBear


----------



## RogerS (16 Dec 2013)

bugbear":1kyg3q0v said:


> RogerS":1kyg3q0v said:
> 
> 
> > This is an interesting website
> ...



What ARE you on about?


----------



## MIGNAL (16 Dec 2013)

renderer01":32lt4pfn said:


> I am probably quite wrong but if memory serves me, you are required to hold a TV licence if you have equipment capable of receiving TV or radio signal on your property.
> My attitude has always been its irrelevant how good or bad the beeb is, its the compulsory charge that is the problem if it was truly great all would want it anyway and be prepared to pay the asked price. But to remove in effect the right to watch other channels without funding the BBC is at best encouraging the prospect of a perpetual gravy train setup and at a time when everything else has to fight for survival
> Rend.




But it's ALL compulsory. No such thing as free TV or indeed free Radio. Commercial stations aren't free. It's simply that their costs are gathered indirectly but make no mistake you, I, everyone pays for it. Try going into Tesco and asking for a small discount because you don't want to contribute to their advertising budget. Then do the same with every company who advertises on the TV and radio. I don't watch commercial TV but I have no option, I pay for it. The only practical way to avoid the 'commercial TV licence' would be to totally opt out of society altogether. There might be a 3 or 4 people who have done that. 3 or 4 out of 60 million. I don't think I'll bother thanks. I'll just carry on contributing to their advertising budget.


----------



## renderer01 (16 Dec 2013)

Hmm its a hostile reposte I recieve for expressing an opinion about not very much frankly, the difference being im free to shop where I choose for whatever food whatever price wherever it may be and choose how much to spend and if I wish to change where thats ok as well. Its a world of free enterprise or its not and the double standards of this shortened vision or total lack of vision disturbs me just a very little.
At the end of the day its supposed to be a free society that is perfectly entitled to hold opinions no matter how deluded they may appear to others its why we vote and choose to adopt a democracy such as it is.
I guess if the cap fits wear it but dont force or attempt to force others to wear it. 
If anyone chooses to continue contributing to whatever thats fine too.

Rend.


----------



## MIGNAL (17 Dec 2013)

:shock: Hostile reposte? :shock:
Perhaps your being a bit too sensitive. I take your point on not having to buy certain products or shop at certain stores but I suspect that in the real world it would be a practical nightmare. I'm pretty sure that all the supermarkets have advertised on TV. I know that the Laptop that I'm typing on has been advertised and my service/telephone provider certainly has. You would also have to watch an awful lot of TV to find out which products were being advertised and of course they might be advertised on certain channels whilst not on others. Impossible to simultaneously watch them all. Then they drop the advertisement for a product only to advertise a new or a different one. Then there is the new product that starts getting promoted. You would need a huge database. It would consume your whole life!  Opting out is very nice in theory but impossible to do on a practical level.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. State TV or Commercial TV. It all costs and we all pay. No option.


----------



## Eric The Viking (17 Dec 2013)

To clear up a point of detail: It's a broadcast receiving licence - you only need one if you use your TV to receive off-air TV programmes. If you only ever watch DVDs, even if you send them round the house as UHF signals, you don't need a licence. Neither do you need to pay for an aerial as such, even if it's connected into the back of a TV.

You only need to pay if you're using the aerial or TV to receive programmes as they are transmitted (you're not paying to _watch_ them, at the same time either!). Recording them to watch later thus needs a licence - it's the _getting-them-from-a-transmitter_ bit that the licence is for. 

It's nothing to do with what equipment you own, although the BBC and the licensing organization would dearly like it to be otherwise, as the present law makes their life difficult. There are more than a few cases where prosecutions were thrown out of court because there was no evidence of reception taking place, but if you were found to have a hard disk full of programmes, you might have a hard time proving you didn't receive them at some point.

Internet reception is a grey area. It's the BBC's settled view that doing this _as live_ needs a licence, but AFAIK this has yet to be tested in court. There was an update to the Wireless Telegraphy Act recently, and it may now be explicit, but I'm not sure. That said, users of the old Rediffusion system, and after that "cable TV" systems such as Virgin have always had to have a licence too, although they don't technically receive off-air. I don't know about Virgin, but the old Rediffusion system had a direct feed from the major broadcasters (thus no actual transmitter involved so it wasn't actually _wireless_!). So, as there is precedent for cable users needing a licence, I can see it being argued that Internet users must also have one. I _think_ the law was changed to make this explicit, but I can't be bothered to go look it up this morning!

I used to be a big defender of the licence fee, as it was several times cheaper per hour for the BBC than ITV. These days I'm not sure. It's true though that you pay for ITV even if you have no TV. At least you can choose to pay for the BBC.

E.

PS: had several goes at the above, as it is a confusing area of law. We had to know it back in the day, as people used to ask, and receiving TV without a licence was a sack-able offence in the BBC (allegedly), along with libelling the DG's wife, as Kenny Everett discovered!


----------



## bugbear (17 Dec 2013)

RogerS":zmr3arei said:


> bugbear":zmr3arei said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":zmr3arei said:
> ...



To be even clearer, I think it's the blog of a narrow minded obsessed nutter, without authority or audience.

They issued a "challenge" to the BBC. When the challenge was not (in their terms) accepted, they say that the BBC failed the challenge. I think they were simply, rightly ignored.

BugBear


----------



## renderer01 (17 Dec 2013)

Lol I have enjoyed this thread, the im too sensitive thingy made me laugh my wife went to work laughing, was so hilarious thanks for that Mignal.
Have a good day,
Regards.

Rend.


----------



## John Brown (17 Dec 2013)

"It's true though that you pay for ITV even if you have no TV."

Good point.


----------



## dedee (17 Dec 2013)

Roger if you do ever buy a place over here you can wack up a satelite dish and with a freeview box watch the beeb for free  
Still have to pay taxes a proportion of which goes to the largest of the tvs companies though  

Cheers

Andy


----------



## Benchwayze (18 Dec 2013)

QI? Hmmmmm. 

Well yes it is a fairly amusing programme, but I do tire of seeing the same clique of 'faces', that have cornered the market, in BBC 'humour'. 

And they all do the rounds of similar format programmes.

I was also surprised to see Richard Osman appear on QI last week. 
No, I wasn't surprised... 
Well yes I was.. 
Hang on, I wasn't, because there's an Alexander Armstrong, connection, through a line from NTN-o-CN' and HIGNFY. So maybe I wasn't surprised.. 

Hang on, I think I'm in the wrong thread. Argument is being covered elsewhere. Isn't it? :mrgreen: 

Oh Cripes, I must be bored. I'm going to the workshop.  

Merry Christmas folks. :ho2 :ho2 :ho2


----------



## bugbear (18 Dec 2013)

Benchwayze":3ktl5p12 said:


> QI? Hmmmmm.
> 
> Well yes it is a fairly amusing programme, but I do tire of seeing the same clique of 'faces', that have cornered the market, in BBC 'humour'.



You must _really hate_ ISIHAC!!

BugBear


----------



## Benchwayze (18 Dec 2013)

I dunno BB. I am still trying to work out (Or maybe I can get a clue from Google'! ) what 'ISIHAC' means! Maybe it's one of those I saw in Radio Times, and dismissed as just another funny-face parade! But if Sandy Toksvig is ever on there, I certainly wouldn't bother anyhow. Reg Brown might sway me though. :mrgreen:

Yes I have realised what it means. Actually, yes I do laugh at that programme, sometimes... . 

8)


----------



## MMUK (18 Dec 2013)

There's only two BBC produced programmes I ever watch - Top Gear and HIGNFY. In fact they are the only TV programmes I watch full stop. I just find them on YouTube and watch them when I want.


----------



## joethedrummer (18 Dec 2013)

Hi just watched KFZIBGGFNMOGFRKLOODFJSD<HKLHO:IYI(>KGCDSSDF on "catch up" TV,,,,,
Anyone else see it ?


----------



## bugbear (18 Dec 2013)

joethedrummer":2g2asz07 said:


> Hi just watched KFZIBGGFNMOGFRKLOODFJSD<HKLHO:IYI(>KGCDSSDF on "catch up" TV,,,,,
> Anyone else see it ?



Yeah. it was ace, but not as good as the first series.

BugBear


----------



## Benchwayze (18 Dec 2013)

Hey Joe, 

You finished building that shed yet? :lol: :lol: :lol: 

If you really are a drummer you'll get it! 

Happy Christmas :ho2


----------



## joethedrummer (18 Dec 2013)

bugbear":1044lwnc said:


> joethedrummer":1044lwnc said:
> 
> 
> > Hi just watched KFZIBGGFNMOGFRKLOODFJSD<HKLHO:IYI(>KGCDSSDF on "catch up" TV,,,,,
> ...


----------



## joethedrummer (18 Dec 2013)

joethedrummer":3qvwk4vw said:


> bugbear":3qvwk4vw said:
> 
> 
> > joethedrummer":3qvwk4vw said:
> ...



Hi BB It"s JTD here,
Hope you have a FGC and a FGNY and wish you ATYWWYF2014,,,


----------



## Benchwayze (18 Dec 2013)

Okay! Chaps... IFGU! :lol: :lol:


----------



## joethedrummer (18 Dec 2013)

Benchwayze":q31cpgwr said:


> Okay! Chaps... IFGU! :lol: :lol:


Hello John,,,,,Don"t GU it"s only just started,,,,,,
drummers and sheds ????????????????? is it Hendrix /
,,,joe,,,


----------



## Benchwayze (18 Dec 2013)

When I used to 'gig', a bad drummer was always accused of 'building a shed', rather than drumming. 
'Tis a standing joke/tease. 

Like how do you get a guitarist to shut up? 'Show him a sheet of music.'! :roll: :mrgreen:


----------



## joethedrummer (18 Dec 2013)

Benchwayze":2t0jh37o said:


> When I used to 'gig', a bad drummer was always accused of 'building a shed', rather than drumming.
> 'Tis a standing joke/tease.
> 
> Like how do you get a guitarist to shut up? 'Show him a sheet of music.'! :roll: :mrgreen:


 
It is a musicians (loose use of the word) thing,,,,, how did we get from TV licence to taking the mickey out of the rhythm section ?
Bet you"re in the front line !!!!!!!


----------



## KevM (18 Dec 2013)

joethedrummer":2xee0eg9 said:


> [,,,, how did we get from TV licence to taking the mickey out of the rhythm section ?
> Bet you"re in the front line !!!!!!!



To be honest I'm a little surprised that any thread, on any forum, can go 7 pages without taking the mickey out of the rhythm section... :wink: 

How do you tell if the stage is level? The drummer's drooling out of both sides of his mouth.


----------



## MMUK (18 Dec 2013)

being a member of the horn line, I'm going to keep out of this :lol:


----------



## joethedrummer (18 Dec 2013)

KevM":nuyocbo4 said:


> joethedrummer":nuyocbo4 said:
> 
> 
> > [,,,, how did we get from TV licence to taking the mickey out of the rhythm section ?
> ...



Careful boys,,it is the season of goodwill,,
Just "cos you lot up the front don"t have to keep going all the time,,,,,,,,,,


----------



## KevM (18 Dec 2013)

As a former trumpeter, a lifetime or so ago, I now adhere to the definition of a gentleman as 'someone who knows how to play the trumpet, but refrains from doing so'.


----------



## joethedrummer (18 Dec 2013)

KevM":7yd3qfgf said:


> As a former trumpeter, a lifetime or so ago, I now adhere to the definition of a gentleman as 'someone who knows how to play the trumpet, but refrains from doing so'.


Kev ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Bet you would have a "blow" now,,given half the chance,,,,


----------



## KevM (18 Dec 2013)

joethedrummer":pqjnurbw said:


> KevM":pqjnurbw said:
> 
> 
> > As a former trumpeter, a lifetime or so ago, I now adhere to the definition of a gentleman as 'someone who knows how to play the trumpet, but refrains from doing so'.
> ...



Last time I tried was truly depressing! 

edit: I was quite tempted by one of those silent Yamaha jobs, but the risk of discovery was too great!
edit: I'm not giving in to the single entendre! :wink:


----------



## joethedrummer (18 Dec 2013)

KevM":1szgdchs said:


> joethedrummer":1szgdchs said:
> 
> 
> > KevM":1szgdchs said:
> ...


Hey Mate ,,,silent trumpet,,,,,drum pads,,,electric piano,,,,it is like sex with your socks on ,,,, not quite the real thing,,,,,believe me !!!!!!


----------



## KevM (18 Dec 2013)

joethedrummer":kx323rrm said:


> Hey Mate ,,,silent trumpet,,,,,drum pads,,,electric piano,,,,it is like sex with your socks on ,,,, not quite the real thing,,,,,believe me !!!!!!



Does anybody know the best way to clean tea off a monitor and keyboard? :lol: :lol:


----------



## Benchwayze (18 Dec 2013)

Bet you're in the front line? 
Put that to music Joe, and I'll download it as my ring-tone. :mrgreen: (Copyright free of course!) 

And I just got that one, courtesy of my TV licence; which I don't need as there is a 75 year old in my house!


----------



## llangatwgnedd (18 Dec 2013)

At the end of the day, you can't beat the Beeb, and cheap as chips compared to $ky.


----------



## fetteler (21 Dec 2013)

llangatwgnedd":2mycw1p0 said:


> At the end of the day, you can't beat the Beeb, and cheap as chips compared to $ky.




Absolutely, simply spot on !!!!!


Steve.


----------



## nanscombe (21 Dec 2013)

How much do Sky TV customers have to pay to decide not to watch 100's of "free to air" programmes?

A minimum of £1,458 a year, 12 * £21.50 a month and what happens if you have more than one TV?


----------

