Are you happy to pay for a tv licence?

Guinness Boy

Tofu eating wokerati

Helpful Moderator

NSC Patron

Jul 23, 2003

34,120

Up and Coming Sunny Portslade

• Jun 15, 2014

• #1

The wife has just said, in response to something on the Marr programme, "no one wants to pay their tv licence". To which I replied I was so long as the BBC remained advert free and independent. I do suspect I am in a minority now - and that minority is shrinking - but I don't believe for a minute that no one wants to pay it and I believe it represents far better value than my Sky package.

 

Notters

Well-known member

Oct 20, 2003

24,869

Guiseley

• Jun 15, 2014

• #2

Yes, the BBC is fantastic and actually think the license fee should go up.

 

Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member

NSC Patron

Jul 11, 2003

59,495

The Fatherland

• Jun 15, 2014

• #3

The BBC has to stay and has to remain by licence. Not only is the quality of output generally high it, in my opinion, promotes the UK globally in a positive and unparalleled manner. It is respected world wide. And this is due to the nature of its funding.

 

Bozza

You can change this

Helpful Moderator

Jul 4, 2003

55,719

Back in Sussex

• Jun 15, 2014

• #4

It's about £150 a year isn't it? An amazing bargain.

 

Beach Hut

Brighton Bhuna Boy

Jul 5, 2003

71,960

Living In a Box

• Jun 15, 2014

• #5

Best TV station globally by a country mile, should remain as it is.

 

Westdene Seagull

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch

NSC Patron

Oct 27, 2003

21,003

The arse end of Hangleton

• Jun 15, 2014

• #6

Well worth the fee - just as long as there are no ads

*** awaits one of the conspiracy crew posting some claptrap ***

 

P

Pogue Mahone

Well-known member

Apr 30, 2011

10,733

• Jun 15, 2014

• #7

I've always been happy to pay the licence fee. How anyone complains about it, when it is so much cheaper than all the other pay TV companies, is beyond me. We are lucky to have the BBC, and it must continue in its present form

 

Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member

NSC Patron

Jul 11, 2003

59,495

The Fatherland

• Jun 15, 2014

• #8

A quick peak at the BBC and ITV World Cup coverage should answer this.

 

portlock seagull

Why? Why us?

Jul 28, 2003

17,071

• Jun 15, 2014

• #9

Not if Phil Neville keeps co commentating.

 

Guinness Boy

Tofu eating wokerati

Helpful Moderator

NSC Patron

Jul 23, 2003

34,120

Up and Coming Sunny Portslade

• Jun 15, 2014

• Thread starter
• #10

Thumbs all round. NSC has cheered me up so far this morning.

 

Beach Hut

Brighton Bhuna Boy

Jul 5, 2003

71,960

Living In a Box

• Jun 15, 2014

• #11

Herr Tubthumper said:

A quick peak at the BBC and ITV World Cup coverage should answer this.

Click to expand...

Or any other global event like a Royal Wedding etc. ITV World Cup coverage is a shambles

 

Triggaaar

Well-known member

Oct 24, 2005

50,168

Goldstone

• Jun 15, 2014

• #12

I'd like the BBC to do less and charge less. They could drop some of the stuff that's well covered by the freeview channels, and concentrate on what they're good at.

 

Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member

NSC Patron

Jul 11, 2003

59,495

The Fatherland

• Jun 15, 2014

• #13

Guinness Boy said:

The wife has just said, in response to something on the Marr programme, "no one wants to pay their tv licence". To which I replied I was so long as the BBC remained advert free and independent. I do suspect I am in a minority now - and that minority is shrinking - but I don't believe for a minute that no one wants to pay it and I believe it represents far better value than my Sky package.

Click to expand...

Why do you think you're in the minority?

 

8ace

Banned

Jul 21, 2003

23,811

Brighton

• Jun 15, 2014

• #14

Yes, but on the proviso they sack that c*nt Mark Bright.

 

F

Fungus

Well-known member

NSC Patron

May 21, 2004

7,046

Truro

• Jun 15, 2014

• #15

Guinness Boy said:

Thumbs all round. NSC has cheered me up so far this morning.

Click to expand...

Go easy on your wife - don't gloat too much.

 

desprateseagull

New member

Jul 20, 2003

10,171

brighton, actually

• Jun 15, 2014

• #16

I don't think it should be mandatory. I get the feeling some programme makers sometimes cruise along, knowing they get paid regardless how good/bad they are..

payment by results, eh?

 

T

TonyW

New member

Feb 11, 2004

2,525

• Jun 15, 2014

• #17

No.

 

D

dougdeep

New member

May 9, 2004

37,732

SUNNY SEAFORD

• Jun 15, 2014

• #18

Yes, but they could cut the channels and radio stations down a bit to keep the costs down.

 

drew

Drew

Oct 3, 2006

23,050

Burgess Hill

• Jun 15, 2014

• #19

desprateseagull said:

I don't think it should be mandatory. I get the feeling some programme makers sometimes cruise along, knowing they get paid regardless how good/bad they are..

payment by results, eh?

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could back up your argument with some examples, both in programmes and how you define results?

Triggaaar said:

I'd like the BBC to do less and charge less. They could drop some of the stuff that's well covered by the freeview channels, and concentrate on what they're good at.

Click to expand...

If every household has to pay the fee then the BBC has to cater for every household. Somebody who enjoys things like Pointless, Eastenders, Casualty etc should not be expected to pay the fee only for the BBC to not to produce those programmes and merely produce what some decides they 'are good at'!

Let's not forget that the fee pays for the various television channels but also a host of radio stations covering a diverse mix of tastes.

Finally, I genuinely believe that without the BBC, the race to the bottom would begin.

 

desprateseagull

New member

Jul 20, 2003

10,171

brighton, actually

• Jun 15, 2014

• #20

Maybe cut out radio smug. er, one.