British Political Junkie thread: old world politics are better anyway

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**SilverMK2**

Silent Puffin? wrote:
Why would you watch live TV on anything other than a TV?

Maybe you are stuck on the train and want to watch the latest episode of Made in Essexenders Celebrity on your phone?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Da Boss wrote:
When I lived in the UK, I had forgotten to sort out my license (moving was hectic, I did honestly forget). But I never hooked up the TV to anything except my X Box, so I never thought about it. The dude came around one day and came in, and was shocked to find it wasn't hooked up. So he was going to let me off but I signed up for it anyway because I figured the BBC was worth paying for for all the wildlife documentaries I'd watched as a kid.

The modern BBC I'm less keen on, though, having seen some shockingly poor reporting especially on their website in recent years. Their coverage of Europe is really often wrong. My girlfriend has written to them to correct things in the past and gotten pretty snotty responses.

I'll address this point to everybody: The TV licence man HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT to enter your property. If they turn up and ask for entry, tell them where to go.

In fact, tell them they can be done for trespass if they don't leave.

The only way they get in my house is if they have a policeman with a search warrant.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Paying for TV like ya'll do is strange.

O.o

Could you NOT pay for TV license and just stream movies/shows over the 'Net?

Americans like yourself must think we're mad for paying a TV tax.

Not everybody takes this lying down. I've been fighting them for years.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
-Shrike- wrote:
In terms of licence fee, I don't know much about the legality, but what's the difference between a tax and the current method? Semantics?

I may be wrong, but as it stands, dodging the licence fee is a civil matter, I think, and the penalty is less severe, and difficult to prove anyway!

But tax avoidance is obviously much more serious.

As it is, I know plenty of people who don't pay for a TV licence, simply because it's tricky to prove you were watching live TV without a licence.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charles Rampant wrote:
I guess that it would change from being a flat fee that everyone has to pay, to part of your overall taxation which would then make it means-tested and all the rest.

I bet our MPs would find a way to wiggle out of it!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
ITV were perfectly happy with the licence fee while they were the only game in town for small screen advertising sales. In the internet era of course ITV has suffered like many other media channels from computer based competition, which does not affect the BBC at all. In fact the BBC arguably have taken advantage of the Internet to launch an extremely successful web site and a range of computer and app services that complement their normal TV and radio programmes.

The downside of financing the BBC through general taxation is that they will be a lot more dependent on the year to year whims of the government of the day.

Personally I believe the BBC and ITV make a very good range of programmes aimed at many different audiences. The BBC can do this because of the licence fee. ITV used to be able to do it because they had to compete with the BBC and they had the advertising revenue.

However if there is a problem now it is not the licence fee, it is the financing of ITV.

In my view the licence fee versus ITV system has produced a rich and successful TV and radio culture which is supplemented in the modern world by subscription based services including Sky and Netflix.

All this for about £1 per person per week for an average household. Not a bad deal in my view!

I like a lot of BBC's programmes, and if given the choice, would happily pay for them. But I resent the fact I don't get that choice. People decry Rupert Murdoch, but nobody forces me to buy Sky TV or The Sun.

That seems to me like a misplaced ideological argument.

If the BBC were funded by taxation, you would be more forced to pay for their programmes than now, as it would come out of your PAYE.

You would have less choice in the matter as even people who don't have TVs and don't need a licence would end up paying for the BBC.

I'm opposed to any form of non-voluntary funding of the BBC. This is 2015 for feth's sake

If the BBC want money to fund themselves, they should allow adverts or go to subscription like

Sky. That's the moral solution in my view.

**SilverMK2**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If the BBC want money to fund themselves, they should allow adverts or go to subscription like Sky. That's the moral solution in my view.

The BBC do run a subscription service; it is called the TV licence

Personally I am much happier paying a TV licence than I am paying BT line rental. I would much rather that the BBC have the ability to produce different and educational programming, rather than the cheap, low brow crap that seems to flood the rest of the airwaves most of the time. Not that the BBC doesn't contribute its fair share every so often of course, but they are generally miles ahead of most other channels/stations/etc.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If the BBC want money to fund themselves, they should allow adverts or go to subscription like Sky. That's the moral solution in my view.

The BBC do run a subscription service; it is called the TV licence

Personally I am much happier paying a TV licence than I am paying BT line rental. I would much rather that the BBC have the ability to produce different and educational programming, rather than the cheap, low brow crap that seems to flood the rest of the airwaves most of the time. Not that the BBC doesn't contribute its fair share every so often of course, but they are generally miles ahead of most other channels/stations/etc.

Sky arts is pretty good. HBO do some good programmes that puts the BBC to shame.

**Wyrmalla**

Issue is that the BBC panders to the public as much as everyone else and has to deal with government induced budget cuts. As a result anything political and they're shilling themselves out to whoever's in charge at the time, leading to rather schizo views. That and yes, though they apparently set a high bar, they're no better than the rest when it comes to fact checking and making things up when it benefits them (to show my bias, I recall during the independence referendum here they had one of their reporters ask the First Minister a question. Immediately it cut to the commentator saying the First Minister "didn't answer". Ah, he did actually, went on for a good bit too. Though during answering and calling bullgak on the question he was calling the BBC a bunch of snakes for their overly biased handling of the campaign).

Which is to say yes, as I said, they're passable for anything outside of actual news. When it comes to that though they're like Fox is to American Conservatives. Heh, though given that they are state sponsored they are in effect the government's mouthpiece, so its to be expected.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Wyrmalla wrote:
Issue is that the BBC panders to the public as much as everyone else and has to deal with government induced budget cuts. As a result anything political and they're shilling themselves out to whoever's in charge at the time, leading to rather schizo views. That and yes, though they apparently set a high bar, they're no better than the rest when it comes to fact checking and making things up when it benefits them (to show my bias, I recall during the independence referendum here they had one of their reporters ask the First Minister a question. Immediately it cut to the commentator saying the First Minister "didn't answer". Ah, he did actually, went on for a good bit too. Though during answering and calling bullgak on the question he was calling the BBC a bunch of snakes for their overly biased handling of the campaign).

Which is to say yes, as I said, they're passable for anything outside of actual news. When it comes to that though they're like Fox is to American Conservatives. Heh, though given that they are state sponsored they are in effect the government's mouthpiece, so its to be expected.

Agreed. BBC bias during the Scottish referendum campaign was shocking. People may say that the clue's in the name, so of course they were going to be pro-Britain, but as a publicly funded broadcaster, it should have been neutral.

**SilverMK2**

Not Scottish people crying about the referendum again?

Take a look at the complaints made against the BBC for bias and you will find they come from all political and social groupings in a roughly even amount over time (even those currently in power). They are a hell of a lot better at being unbiased than almost any other news source I have ever seen.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Not Scottish people crying about the referendum again?

Take a look at the complaints made against the BBC for bias and you will find they come from all political and social groupings in a roughly even amount over time (even those currently in power). They are a hell of a lot better at being unbiased than almost any other news source I have ever seen.

That's just the Daily Mail banging the drum.

**SilverMK2**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
That's just the Daily Mail banging the drum.

Nah, besides, if you take into account the number of TV licences and how many of them are held by people in Scotland, you can work out how "biased" any BBC reporting should be based on how much money Scottish people add into their coffers

**notprop**

Oh man this thread is tragic, even a reasonably interesting tangent on TV Licences turn into anther chance for the Jocks to piss and moan again.

Can we have some sort of vote to get rid of the pastey blighters?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

notprop wrote:
Oh man this thread is tragic, even a reasonably interesting tangent on TV Licences turn into anther chance for the Jocks to piss and moan again.

Can we have some sort of vote to get rid of the pastey blighters?

Never mind that, we've got bigger fish to fry.

Protestors, campaigning against cuts to disability benefits, have gotten into Parliament, and are attempting to break into the chamber

I wish them luck. Glad to see somebody's standing up against these Tory idiots.

**Silent Puffin?**

SilverMK2 wrote:
They are a hell of a lot better at being unbiased than almost any other news source I have ever seen.

**Da Boss**

The backslapping over the BBC is a bit much. I do not think it is as unbiased as everyone makes out, as an outsider, especially when it comes to European issues.

**Kilkrazy**

Independent studies of BBC output disagree with you.

**Da Boss**

Funny, I found 2 independent reports that agree with me with less than 5 minutes searching.

**Koppo**

Personally I like the BBC and generally approve of how they do things compared to the alternatives.

However the Licence fee is a solution to a problem that no longer exists.

The Licence Fee was a way to get people to pay for (therefore fund) a service which is broadcast, that is, available to any and all with the means to receive it.

The only other model available in the '30s(?) would have been advertising but without an audience who'd do that?

Now we have the ability to enforce a subscription type service with a broadcast by using encryption (digital TV, Sky) or "narrowcast" by users connecting to the supplier (net flicks et al).

On this basis the BBC should convert themselves into a subscription service, for which I'd happily pay (and currently do via the licence fee). That way Old Murdoch would not get his cut (he does, because of reasons) and the likes of Channel 4 could do like wise or run a hybrid free to air + subscribed content model.

By all means keep the BBC a not for profit org, with a the BBC board and General Director and be held to "higher" levels of quality than other broadcasters, but the very reason for the licence fee no longer exists.