Let’s talk about BBC

[Psamathe]

It's not even as if the licence fee is a significant expense, I never understand people moaning about it in the grand scheme of things people spend more on.

Very much depends on your income.

 

[Psamathe]

Well there's your answer then. It's a tax you can actually choose not to pay, unlike most of them.

Or a service I chose not to subscribe to. Except it stops you watching lots of other services that receive nothing from the BBC.

 

[Ian H]

Those are not part of the License Fee. Anybody can listen to those without subscribing so I don't see that as relevant.

If relevant then maybe everybody using them should be paying not just a select group.

BBC radio used to require a licence (if memory serves it was less than a full TV licence). It was arbitrarily scrapped. The justification, as I recall, was that nearly everyone watched TV, so the elderly and the poor, the only ones with just a radio wireless could be exempted.

 

[briantrumpet]

Or a service I chose not to subscribe to. Except it stops you watching lots of other services that receive nothing from the BBC.

If you're going to hang onto your notion of it being a subscription service you don't use, there's little point in explaining it any more.

 

[secretsqirrel]

Quick google search….

For every £1 collected, roughly:

• • 55p goes to TV.
  • 16p to Radio.
  • 10p to BBC Online.
  • 10p to the World Service.
  • 5p to Production & Other.
  • 4p to Collection & Pensions.

 

[BoldonLad]

Being pedantic, how is "watching" actually defined?, ie do you have to watch more than x minutes of a given program, does casually viewing a few seconds of TV when in a Shopping Mall with TVs on display count as "watching".

For a forum where most people seem to be advocates of "paying your share" an annual tax/subscription of c£175 is causing a lot of angst.

 

[secretsqirrel]

Being pedantic, how is "watching" actually defined?, ie do you have to watch more than x minutes of a given program, does casually viewing a few seconds of TV when in a Shopping Mall with TVs on display count as "watching".

For a forum where most people seem to be advocates of "paying your share" an annual tax/subscription of c£175 is causing a lot of angst.

Being pedantic, it has nothing to do with watching, it is about receiving a broadcast signal.

 

[BoldonLad]

Being pedantic, it has nothing to do with watching, it is about receiving a broadcast signal.

OK. I don't see those words here https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check...XrQk6BY6tDt0LRPXngLwQC7Z5sXF-16BoC16MQAvD_BwE, but, for £175/annum, I am not incluned to investigate further 😊

 

[PurplePenguin]

Re: Website and Radio

In what way is that relevant to paying for TV broadcasts? I was discussing TV broadcasts whereas radio and website are not part of the TV License Fee.

If website and radio need including then there needs to be some way for BBC to charge subscriptions as making consumers of one form of media pay for a different form on behalf of others seems beyond weird.

nb BBC websites do get a fair criticism due to the pressures they put on our mainstream press. In effect BBC are competing against other press media on unequal terms.

Do you really think that abolishing the licence fee would have no impact on radio or the websites? If you listen to the radio and read the website, but do not watch TV, then you are legally fine to not have a licence. Morally far less so.

People who want to scrap the licence fee, but continue to listen to free radio stations amuse me with their naivety.

Of course the mainstream media hates the BBC, but surely something that is the enemy of both the Guardian and the Mail should be considered a friend?

 

[briantrumpet]

You're not alone.

You rarely are.