pig flu to close the fest?

[Pinhead]

which bit?

"Tell you what, why don't we have seperate little arenas for all the stages at Glastonbury, and if you want to go there, you pay a little bit of money. See how long some of the smaller stages would last. Do you think that would make for a better festival. Or maybe you should buy tokens just for the acts you want to see and not have to pay for any of the others?"

Interesting analogy. However, I think the key here is choice. I could choose to go to another festival if I had a problem with paying for Glastonbury when I spent all my time at the Pyramid Stage, uninterested in anything else. However, I would not expect Glastonbury Festivals to still charge me for going to that other festival.

"Third paragraph? check the papers/news (even the BBC) We, as taxpayers ARE subsidising the car industry at the moment, just as we're subsidising the banks and loads of huge tax evading multinationals."

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Mardy]

You might not like SKY or Virgin but the fact is that they give you a choice over what you want to watch and what you want to pay for.

[Mardy]

interesting post pinhead, cheers for engaging.

I still think you're wrong, but I need to think a bit more about why

these sorts of discussions are much much better over a beer in a pub rather than on the internet, I have to say

I'll be back later....

[jameshunt]

So, if you want to have a TV just to watch, or own a radio and only listen to XFM then you still have to pay for the BBC.

[1] You think it's fair that people should be forced to pay for something they have no intention of using?

Nobody said he was made to buy a TV license, they said he was bullied, which the story perfectly demonstrates.

[2] Pay attention.

[3] Now, I like the BBC and I would choose to pay for it if it wasn't compulsory. That's not the point though and I totally get why some people are annoyed that they should be forced to pay for something they don't want.

[4] You might not like SKY or Virgin but the fact is that they give you a choice over what you want to watch and what you want to pay for.

[Pinhead]

Once more you fail to comprehend what it is that you write. Revenue generation - i.e. selling content to other channels around the world (and Dave in the UK) - is NOT profit making. It is an income stream, not a profit stream, which subsidises the cost of the British TV license.

[joshwarrr]

interesting post pinhead, cheers for engaging.

I still think you're wrong, but I need to think a bit more about why

these sorts of discussions are much much better over a beer in a pub rather than on the internet, I have to say

I'll be back later....

[jameshunt]

You fail to see my contention, that I don't believe that money goes solely into subsidising the cost of running the organisation.

[Pinhead]

Yep - off to the pub too I reckon. Have a good evening all

[bombfrog]

I don't want to pay for military spending and bombs for Iraq, I don't want to pay to subsidise car manufacturers and banks, I don't want to pay for police, I don't want to pay for maintenance of roads. In fact, I've not been to a library for years, f*** it, I'm not paying for them anymore. I left school years ago, don't think I'll pay for them any more either.

[Pinhead]

I fail to agree with your contention as it is completely lacking in substance. Do you have access to the BBC's accounts? Are the directors paying themselves billions each year out of profits? Do you have a source to substantiate your claim that the BBC is a profit making organisation?

[joshwarrr]

Pub pub pub pub

pub pub pub pub

pub pub pub pub

pu-pu-pu-puuuuuuuub

[jameshunt]

Quick browse before I go:

" . . . controversial £90 million acquisition of the Lonely Planet guides and the subsequent launch of a spin-off magazine which, unlike most Worldwide products, is not tied to or related to an existing BBC show."

http://www.paidcontent.co.uk/entry/419-bbc...eign-expansion/

"As pay restraint is being forced on the public sector across the board, people will have little sympathy with BBC executives on high wages giving themselves massive pay increases."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/226...han-100000.html

Have a good evening.

[Mardy]

Completely missing the point there Mardy,

You cannot compare essential public services, health, education, transport infastructure etc (the kind of thing that government exists for) to a company that makes The Apprentice and Eastenders!

[bombfrog]

What is the percentage of people in the UK who own a TV who never, ever watch a BBC programme? There is an alternative. Simply scrap the license and pay for the BBC out of central funds - i.e. from direct taxation. Or simply scrap the BBC completely and see what that brings.

[Mardy]

Pub pub pub pub

pub pub pub pub

pub pub pub pub

pu-pu-pu-puuuuuuuub

[joshwarrr]

hahahaha. Words of wisdom

*seconded*

Edited May 6, 2009 by joshwarrr

[rostalof]

I would contend that it is very profit making. Remember a few years back when it nearly went bust due to all its bad investments, and had to be bailed out by the government again using taxpayers money to keep it alive. Sir Christopher Bland, a former Chairman of the BBC, and Lord Birt themselves developed its profit-making activities as an insurance policy against one day losing the licence fee.

Consider too the BBC’s own record label, DVD sales, magazines with often tenuous connections to television programmes. Interest from that banked money also gets spent on the attractive salaries of its directors and executives.

As for the internet - you can access that content abroad. True, no iPlayer, but the website and all its running and development costs are paid for by us. And that joint funding raises another question - so much content for it is now privately produced as either sole or joint ventures by outside production companies with the BBC, that its difficult to see the BBC as anything other than a broadcasting infrastructure portal for this material, far from their Charter stipulations.

[Mr Ploppy]

So your friends were asked to pay a TV license which they refused to do until they actually had a TV. As I said before, that is an excellent story.

Or are you saying that they were taken to court and forced to pay for a license which they didn't need?

[philthy]

Perhaps the confusion lies in the phrase "Bullied into paying", yes your friends sound like they were bullied, but not actually bullied into paying.

James,

These posts were not about whether or not they had a TV, the discussion started about 'bullying'. Since you have already forgotten the core meaning of this discussion I will recap for you...

I SAID:- "people are still being FORCED and BULLIED into paying"

YOU REPLIED:- "no one is forcing or bullying you into paying a license fee"

My replies are to backup my personal experience of friends who were BULLIED and when explained they did not have a TV on site as were decorating and were told they were not believed.

Please try to keep track of the discussion James as the simple point I proved here was that people are being bullied.

The fact that they did no require the license until about 3 weeks later and so only then paid for one is not relevant - the fact is you said "no one is forcing or bullying you into paying a license fee" and that is obviously a million miles from the truth.

I am ceasing my discussion on this subject as I cant be bothered having to recap the previous posts for ya since you cant keep track of the purpose and main point of the discussion.

End of transmission.

[jameshunt]

Perhaps the confusion lies in the phrase "Bullied into paying", yes your friends sound like they were bullied, but not actually bullied into paying.

[bombfrog]

Look at the scale of the operation and the quality of the product (generally).

BBC News is one of the fairest and unbiased news organisations in the world. Go down the SKY/American Networks route and what will you get, Rupert Murdoch's political agenda shoved down your throat by Sky News and Fox.

If you want to see truly crap PSB, check out RTE in Ireland. We pay a 160 euro licence fee (141 Pounds Sterling) for a service run by people that are terrified to speak out against an incompetent government and one which is choc-full of ads despite the sizeable licence fee!

Edited May 6, 2009 by bombfrog

[suchacharmer]

Really, I think you all need to stop complaining and take a look at what the alternative model, the free enterprise network, looks like. Here in America we get 20 minute programs and 10 minutes of commercials...programming is selected based on the lowest common denominator, so tons of game shows, reality TV, and re-runs. I realize you get a lot of that there as well, but the sheer volume of it on American airwaves is pathetic. I work for a television network in the US, and believe me, there is no concern for the public good, it's just advertising dollars and cheap production costs. We can't even come up with our own ideas anymore, so we just buy the rights to UK, Mexican, or Australian programs and recast them. Then, like someone has already mentioned, there is the problem of multi-national corporations, like Viacom, forcing their opinions on the public through networks like Fox News, and withholding stories or topics because they conflict with advertisers or another one of the corporations holdings. In short, it is a broken system that does nothing for the viewer. While we don't pay licensing fees, I'd gladly pay my share if it meant that our networks could start reforming themselves and stop worrying so much about the advertiser.

[philthy]

Bravo!

Thank you for understanding my point.

[bombfrog]

Really, I think you all need to stop complaining and take a look at what the alternative model, the free enterprise network, looks like. Here in America we get 20 minute programs and 10 minutes of commercials...programming is selected based on the lowest common denominator, so tons of game shows, reality TV, and re-runs.

[Mardy]

This isn't about the quality of the BBC, or the value for money. Both of which I don't think should really be called into question.

It's about forcing people to pay for something non-essential that they may not want to use.

Now, if you want to go down the route of arguing that the BBC provides an essential service (education programming, programming for the disabled etc) and that everyone should pay for it then I would say two things to you...

A ) Why is the BBC not funded by a tax which everyone has to pay, why is it based upon whether you own a TV or Radio?

B ) It needs to be massively scaled back to only provide those essential services which are worthy of public funding. Tax payers should not be forced to pay Graham Norton's salary if they have no intention of watching him.