BBC License - Why?

[bev888]

Could someone please explain to me why it is reasonable that I should be obliged to pay nearly £150 per year to the BBC, even if I do not wish to watch the BBC, but that if I don't pay I am not allowed to own a television and therefore can't watch any other channel?

How many businesses would just love an arrangement like this - a huge guaranteed customer base, and seemingly no accountability for what they do with our money, allowing them to pay exorbitant salaries to people, even rewarding the incompetent ones?!

Imagine that the government took another of life's pleasures, say cake, (something which we can do without, but which makes life more pleasant, just like TV) and told us that the first £150 we spend every year on cake had to be paid to a certain company, which would then supply us with their choice of cake (quantity and quality not guaranteed) and then that company could pay their employees whatever they chose. If we declined, we would be banned from buying cake from anywhere else. To my way of thinking this would be exactly the same as being forced to support the BBC.

Isn't it time this practice was stopped, so that the public were no longer held to ransom over this and the BBC would have to compete with the other channels on it's own merit?

[gness]

Long Canadian winters, Canadian television, Canadian radio, no World Service. I'd have sold one of the children for BBC television and even more, their wonderful radio. If the licence fee is the only way to avoid adverts I'll happily pay it.

[bev888]

Yes jno, I do get the point that tax is necessary and that it's not all about me.
Your examples are not really equivalent to the BBC in my view. No-one will ever get through life without using the health service at some point, schools educate other people's children who then go on to provide some sort of service to the childless, roads are used to deliver goods that carless people use, so we all use these things indirectly.
If the BBC were seen to be held accountable, and were not always in the news for one scandal after another I might find it more palatable to help fund them. But as with every other government department that doesn't have to compete, they seem not to have to consider costs.
And I don't consider exchanging views with others "whinging" China Doll. Other people's views may help me understand this issue and make me change my mind and feel better about this.

[mccfluff]

ok what about all the educational programmes that are run? esp the ones to go with open university, is that not education?

[Svejk]

I agree with you, Bev. Posters who say they're happy to pay seem to be missing the point. Some people aren't happy to pay but have no choice. Even if you don't own a telly you're bombarded with threatening letters.
As for arguments about 'dumbed down programming', could the BBC get much dumber.
Perhaps if it was financed in a different way, it could be more of a PIB and stop chasing independent companies to the bottom of the barrel.
One last thing. No sane person who read about the beebs expenses scandal would support the existing arrngement.

[Zacs-Master]

could the BBC get much dumber.
Yes, it could be Channel 5!

[mccfluff]

lol, people who don't agree with you are missing the point...

people who don't agree with me about the fair distribution of chocolate are dumbasses too

[Ellipsis]

The BBC, as well as being excellent in itself, helps keep up the quality of other channels in the UK. So even if you don't watch or listen to a single minute of it, the fact that exists improves your television and radio experience.

[Old_Geezer]

Why do any of of have to pay taxes for things we don't actually use ? Oh wait, it's about something being good for the community as a whole isn't it. And how we all agree to contribute to the common fund for various things. Ah, well, that's understood then. At least by those who realise there is merit in providing for the commmunity and not just looking out for one's own narrow short term interests.

[Old_Geezer]

The better question is why is it separate from other taxation with all the hassle and cost of collecting it. Not to mention the opportunity of persecution of those without TVs. Ah, well, maybe that's it. Must be fun to get at folk I suppose.

[mccfluff]

i'm far more annoyed by my taxes going to lazy idiots who can work but refuse to

[jno]

I don't know where you get the idea the BBC doesn't consider costs. The licence fee has been frozen, they've sold their TV HQ, they're losing thousands of jobs, shipped others out to cheaper lands oop north, and are cutting their budget by 20%.

Of course, ditching experienced but highly paid staff leaves you with low-paid but inexperienced ones. That's why you get scandals: they no longer have people who do a proper job.

[Svejk]

Jno, the bbc fought tooth & nail to carry on raising the fee & riding the gravy train.
Would these 'experienced,well paid staff' include the 'artistic director' whose pay was £600,000pa yet submitted taxi receipts for £40,000pa. That's right, folks, £800 a week for taxis.
Whenever they gave 'presents' to each other, they thought it perfectly normal to claim expenses for them. I know this kind of thing goes on in other big institutions, but it doesn't make it right.

[Boy-Blue]

The only remedy to the question posed regarding the TV license is for the government to allow the BBC to advertise, but who in their right mind would want yet more adverts to ruin interesting programmes such as documentaries, films and plays, etc? Best to leave well alone, and for those who object to paying the license fee my advice to them would be get rid of the box.