Some say the BBC are good value some say it isnt I think the conversation is redundant. The issue is as I always point out The BBC receive payments for other peoples work.
It would be like saying Company X cannot employ me or anyone else without paying my wages again to John Smith, say they had to pay £20,000 a year to John Smith to have anyone work there otherwise they could be criminally prosecuted and fined millions. assuming in this example the company get John Smith working for them.
Or if I had to buy a bread Licence say for £50 a year to Kingsmill otherwise if I had any bread ever in my house or was ever caught buying bread from another brand and had not paid the bread licence to Kingsmill large fine and criminal charges. Again assuming you get one loath of Kingsmill bread a week.
Then arguably the company are getting insane good value for employing John Smith because they are not just employing John Smith they are buying the right to be allowed to employ anyone full stop. John Smith does not need to be a good worker here In fact John Smith could loudly scream Hitler Was right every day of work **** all over the bosses desk every day and threaten customers that he would do them in if he ever saw them set foot on the premises ever again and he would still be insane good value because the business cannot exist or employ anyone in this situation.
Kingsmill would be insane good value under this model because its not just Kingsmill its the right to ever eat bread. Kingsmill could literally just have their employers defecate in the bags and ship that out instead and they would still be insane good value under this model.
Its why it annoys me when people say BBC is good value that is only because they have a government effectively backing some mafia like shakedown system.
If I have a limited budget and can only have one or two subscriptions and the BBC licence fee is only for BBC programmes I can watch whatever I like outside of that without having to have the Licence fee I would not buy the Licence fee/pay that subscription simply put because I enjoy other content more.
Under the current model all BBC programming could be replaced by a skinny chav injecting himself with heroine burning random **** in some unsafe pile just for kicks and ranting on about why he is convinced the earth is flat and the moon is really a reptilian spaceship in disguise and it would still be insane good value.
There are many content producing companies who I would value the content of more then I would the content of BBC. Others would have different opinions and I think that is just it it comes down to opinion.
What I resent is That I have to pay for a TV licence if I want to watch non BBC content. Would you guys buy the Licence fee if you did not need it for watching none BBC content? If it was just pay the fee for BBC content and that was it? I assume yes and I assume many other people would say yes too and that is fair enough. I also assume many would say no but are currently been forced to pay that even though like me they almost never watch BBC content and that is what I take issue with.
Despite a number of previous discussions on this topic, you seem unable to stop yourself posting this stuff. Why do you think it is called a TV licence? You could have an equally irrelevant moan about how much cheaper a night out might be if there was no duty on alcohol. Or how much cheaper it would be to run a car if there was no road tax, or any duty to pay on petrol or diesel.
How can I legally avoid paying a TV licence fee? The basic rule is that you must have a TV licence if you watch, record or otherwise consume live television. It doesn’t matter which television stations you watch, or how you watch them. You still have to buy a licence if you only watch live streams from Mongolia’s Eagle TV channel.
Yes you have pointed this out before but the vast majority of the licence fee goes to the BBC so it is for the BBC. I mean by that logic in my other examples we could say its an employer licence even though 97% goes to John Smith and its a bread licence even though the vast majority goes to Kingsmill.
Your assessing the tv licence as great value on the basis of getting BBC content for it and then its not a BBC fee its a TV licence when I point out I should not have to pay this licence as I do not watch BBC content. its like you want to have it both ways.
Whichever way you try to spin it we are forced to pay large fees to the BBC in order to be able to enjoy mostly non BBC content.
You are a terrible man for jumping to conclusions. I didnt make any comments regarding the BBC. I was merely pointing out that it is a TV licence, and not a BBC licence. I dont think anyone should need any more proof of this, than quickly reading the rules. You still need a licence whether you watch BBC or not. In fact you may still need a TV licence, if you dont have a TV.
You just cant seem to grasp that just because the vast majority of the proceeds from the licence fee are paid to the BBC, it still does not make it a BBC licence. There is another option below.
Introduce new tax directly for public media
In 2019, Sweden removed its TV licence model and instead introduced a new tax on people's income to fund public service television and radio in the country.
The tax, which everyone pays regardless of whether they own a television or not, amounts to 1% of an individual's income and is capped at a certain amount - in 2019 this was 1,300 kronor (£105.16 at the current exchange rate).
Some say the BBC are good value some say it isnt I think the conversation is redundant. The issue is as I always point out The BBC receive payments for other peoples work.
It would be like saying Company X cannot employ me or anyone else without paying my wages again to John Smith, say they had to pay £20,000 a year to John Smith to have anyone work there otherwise they could be criminally prosecuted and fined millions. assuming in this example the company get John Smith working for them.
Or if I had to buy a bread Licence say for £50 a year to Kingsmill otherwise if I had any bread ever in my house or was ever caught buying bread from another brand and had not paid the bread licence to Kingsmill large fine and criminal charges. Again assuming you get one loath of Kingsmill bread a week.
Then arguably the company are getting insane good value for employing John Smith because they are not just employing John Smith they are buying the right to be allowed to employ anyone full stop. John Smith does not need to be a good worker here In fact John Smith could loudly scream Hitler Was right every day of work **** all over the bosses desk every day and threaten customers that he would do them in if he ever saw them set foot on the premises ever again and he would still be insane good value because the business cannot exist or employ anyone in this situation.
Kingsmill would be insane good value under this model because its not just Kingsmill its the right to ever eat bread. Kingsmill could literally just have their employers defecate in the bags and ship that out instead and they would still be insane good value under this model.
Its why it annoys me when people say BBC is good value that is only because they have a government effectively backing some mafia like shakedown system.
If I have a limited budget and can only have one or two subscriptions and the BBC licence fee is only for BBC programmes I can watch whatever I like outside of that without having to have the Licence fee I would not buy the Licence fee/pay that subscription simply put because I enjoy other content more.
Under the current model all BBC programming could be replaced by a skinny chav injecting himself with heroine burning random **** in some unsafe pile just for kicks and ranting on about why he is convinced the earth is flat and the moon is really a reptilian spaceship in disguise and it would still be insane good value.
There are many content producing companies who I would value the content of more then I would the content of BBC. Others would have different opinions and I think that is just it it comes down to opinion.
What I resent is That I have to pay for a TV licence if I want to watch non BBC content. Would you guys buy the Licence fee if you did not need it for watching none BBC content? If it was just pay the fee for BBC content and that was it? I assume yes and I assume many other people would say yes too and that is fair enough. I also assume many would say no but are currently been forced to pay that even though like me they almost never watch BBC content and that is what I take issue with.
Despite a number of previous discussions on this topic, you seem unable to stop yourself posting this stuff. Why do you think it is called a TV licence? You could have an equally irrelevant moan about how much cheaper a night out might be if there was no duty on alcohol. Or how much cheaper it would be to run a car if there was no road tax, or any duty to pay on petrol or diesel.
How can I legally avoid paying a TV licence fee? The basic rule is that you must have a TV licence if you watch, record or otherwise consume live television. It doesn’t matter which television stations you watch, or how you watch them. You still have to buy a licence if you only watch live streams from Mongolia’s Eagle TV channel.
Yes you have pointed this out before but the vast majority of the licence fee goes to the BBC so it is for the BBC. I mean by that logic in my other examples we could say its an employer licence even though 97% goes to John Smith and its a bread licence even though the vast majority goes to Kingsmill.
Your assessing the tv licence as great value on the basis of getting BBC content for it and then its not a BBC fee its a TV licence when I point out I should not have to pay this licence as I do not watch BBC content. its like you want to have it both ways.
Whichever way you try to spin it we are forced to pay large fees to the BBC in order to be able to enjoy mostly non BBC content.
The Swedish model may at first glance seem a little cheaper. Unless of course you are married, or living with someone and are both working. God forbid you are a middle aged couple with two kids that are working, and still living at home. In that case you would be squealing like a stuck pig for the BBC licence to be brought back, and be completely convinced about what good value for money it was.
ps when I used the term BBC licence, I was taking the pi55, so no need to point that out.
Comments
I didnt make any comments regarding the BBC.
I was merely pointing out that it is a TV licence, and not a BBC licence.
I dont think anyone should need any more proof of this, than quickly reading the rules.
You still need a licence whether you watch BBC or not.
In fact you may still need a TV licence, if you dont have a TV.
You just cant seem to grasp that just because the vast majority of the proceeds from the licence fee are paid to the BBC, it still does not make it a BBC licence.
There is another option below.
Introduce new tax directly for public media
In 2019, Sweden removed its TV licence model and instead introduced a new tax on people's income to fund public service television and radio in the country.
The tax, which everyone pays regardless of whether they own a television or not, amounts to 1% of an individual's income and is capped at a certain amount - in 2019 this was 1,300 kronor (£105.16 at the current exchange rate).
Unless of course you are married, or living with someone and are both working.
God forbid you are a middle aged couple with two kids that are working, and still living at home.
In that case you would be squealing like a stuck pig for the BBC licence to be brought back, and be completely convinced about what good value for money it was.
ps when I used the term BBC licence, I was taking the pi55, so no need to point that out.
Yet another reason why we should cherish the BBC. I'm not at all sure many other countries have a PBS that would do this.
BBC World Service launches emergency pop-up radio service for Sudan
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-65447051