Abolish The TV Licence Fee

Guest Blogger – Jack Lai – Chelsea

I make no complaint about the existence of a licence to support a a strong, non commercial, dedicated, impartial, and accurate broadcasting corporation maintaining the utmost levels of integrity in everything they do. The BBC were renowned for their technical expertise and their ruthless impartiality and fairness. However, the BBC ain’t it any more and I do have strong feelings on the level of the licence fee currently and whether it represents value for money. There is no doubt in my mind that it does not as the BBC have departed from their central and impartial role in a desire to become more commercial and competitive. Their programming has now become fragmented and like a straw in the wind. A large number of their more controversial politically sensitive broadcasts now have the feel of government censorship. Since the unmitigated disaster of the news broadcast on the subject of weapons of mass destruction and the tragic death of that expert in the field I have always had doubts on the ability of the BBC to retain it’s independence from successive overbearing government influence in both it’s broadcasts and program content.

It makes sense to think about the heavy, above inflation fee increase as being caused by a massive rise in the number of minority interest or cult and ethnic based programs which have limited appeal to a wide general viewing audience. As said elsewhere the BBC have diluted their claim for a greater increase in the licence fee by obtaining lots of “back door” sponsorship which grinds with their commercial broadcasting counterparts and brings accusations of undue effects on advertising revenue

I was of the opinion that the BBC charter should not have been renewed in 2006. There is consistent evidence of BBC broadcasters persistently “talking up” the economy and other sensitive issues. As there is so much of this there is little doubt that central instructions are being given. The BBC or any other so called independent broadcaster must never be used in such a way.

It is a pity because we do need a British Broadcasting Corporation. We don’t need another series of TV (and it has to be said some of their radio) channels that we have to pay for that do the same thing as all the other ones that are self financing. Somewhere in this mess may be something worth saving that I would be happy to stump up something for, but I am fed up with watching Parliamentary sub committees who have no clue about the subject,rubber stamping the BBC charter in the face of mounting criticism and constructive comments from the commercial operators. But most of all I get pissed by the BBC managers, half of whom in the past proved themselves incompetent, but still retain their attitude of having an unequivocal right to their job and to do whatever they want to just because of who they are.

Personally I am sad to say that in spite of my love for some aspects of the BBC that struggle to remain as part of the mainstream programming and especially it’s local radio stations, I can no longer see any major reason to continue to support the renewal of the charter and consequently the licence fee while the BBC remains in its current form.

Changing the BBC status to self financing will force managers to become more focused.It’s either that or wield the axe heavily on the huge number of stations currently in operation

I have no connection with either the BBC or any commercial media company, but I have in the past worked with managers from the major TV channels and those also from the film industry

Guest Blogger – Steve Jones – Warrington

I don’t watch TV as it is. It would make no difference WHATSOEVER to me if the BBC were to go bust in this recession.

However, were I to watch TV, and were I to be given the choice between a license fee and free, advert-laden television, I would surely pick the latter.

I love how BBC spokesmen and/or MPs join this group (thus inadvertently swelling its numbers) to try and indoctrinate us with falsitudes about the BBC’s “wonderful service”, its “unbiased” (my arse, and you can quote me on that) programming and its “importance”.

Michael Hamilton said it best in another thread in this very group:
“Nowadays most, if not the vast majority, of the programmes on, at least, BBC 1 & 2 are mindless rubbish. If it isn’t flogging stuff at auctions, its celebrities getting it on to rekindle stagnant careers or celebrities dancing, cooking, or some other thing in order to hog the limelight.”

You say the BBC is important. How the hell did younger generations survive before there ever was TV? Oh yeah, I bet they ate mud for breakfast and shit for tea before the BBC brough them The Good Word. Such a shame that people like you, Matthew, are currently regurgitating both from every orifice with your posts. Before the BBC, there were dragons roaming the skies torching every village, and let’s not forget it was a BBC employee who invented the circular wheel!!

I will never, ever, as long as I live, donate a single penny of my own money to this fascistic organisation. I shall never connect my television set to the aerial socket unless the TV license is scrapped, or the choice to opt-into BBC programming is brought into force. I shall miss nothing – my Internet subscription fee will provide me with all the Top Gear I could ever watch, while Youtube will grant me access to snooker, assuming I can even be bothered to watch it.

A miracle is needed to bring in this “impartial, engaging, unbiased, entertaining programming” you speak of. Because if I look down the listings in the TV guide, I find pretty much none of it on the Beeb.

I shall save my TV tax-fee money for spending on DVDs. This gives me three (3) distinct advantages:
1 – NO ADVERTS! WAHEY! Even for programmes normally broadcast on ITV or other commercial channels, I have them removed! Joy!
2 – I pay only for things I want to watch, not for my hours of viewing clogged by shit I don’t care about.
3 – It will be cheaper to buy a bunch of DVDs than an abominable license fee, of which I see precisely no benefit to having, and would not even if I did watch TV.

I guarantee I shall not mourn my loss of this wonderful cornucopia of delights you call the BBC daily schedule. I shall not suffer for being without, I shall not want for it. And I guarantee that any future progeny shall not either. =)

Guest Blogger – Alan Parson – Liverpool

Well if the BBC was to go, and TV Licence was to be abolished, then would you really want to watch television which is purely out there to get money and greed? The BBC offers impartial, unbiased programming, which isn’t influenced by sponsorship. The BBC is probably the one place in this country where we can truly get away from commercialism.

If the BBC was to go, or at least commercial, then the quality of television would drastically go down in this country. Indirectly, commercial networks are keeping up with the quality of the BBC, if the BBC was to lose television licensing then their quality would go down, effecting other broadcasters to do the same.

ITV is a vile channel in many respects, it constantly makes cheap reality television programming, which doesn’t engage any respectable viewer what so ever. Do we get expensive, meaningful drama’s on ITV any more? nope, do we get documentaries which are insightful and captivating? nope. Mass audience are influenced on ITV by cheap reality television, and lazy script writing. ITV is losing revenue through advertising because it doesn’t connect with its main target audience of 16 to 30 year olds. That is all that ITV truly care about, because that is the age bracket of what advertisers target. Do you not think it is good to have a network which ISN’T influenced by advertising? ITV has to put Coronation Street on twice two nights a week, just to keep the ratings up, and Emmerdale every god-damn night!

The BBC hardly makes much reality television in contrast, I can only think of one which is ‘Strictly Come Dancing’, yes it used to do Fame Academy, and perhaps one or two for charities. You might as well be brain dead watching reality television shows, it doesn’t engage anyone, or better people. At least the BBC gives us a variety of output which can educate and stimulate the mind.

The BBC has the courage to show new and invigorating drama’s, where commercial networks are too keen to repeat tried and tested formula’s over and over and over and over again! (Friends..upto 6 times a day on E4!), The Simpsons, Zzzzzz, yes they’re good, but the amount of repeats on some commercial networks is terrible, and as long as they’re getting the ratings (MONEY) they’ll stay on. The BBC is unbiased and can take chances on developing new, fresh programming. it is not influenced by ratings.

Look what has happened to children’s television NOW in this country. We used to be the pioneers of making good children’s television, what has happened? ITV isn’t getting advertising money…so no more childrens tv.. This goes to show that ITV is JUST about the MONEY, not about the entertainment, the engagement of programming, and ITV goes along with just about every other commercial network out there.

The BBC is very much needed to fund impartial, engaging, unbiased, entertaining programming, which isn’t influenced by this sick and twisted commercial world we live in! Isn’t it nice to have a channel which doesn’t have ‘PEPSI’ or ‘CADBURYS’ plastered all over it.

LONG LIVE THE BBC IN IT’S CURRENT FORM!!!!!!
38 pence a day! you can’t even get a chocolate bar for that much.

Guest Blogger -  Tristram Stuckey – Nottingham

I moved into my flat about two years ago. Two days after I moved in, the licencing people came knocking on my door to inform me that I didn’t have a licence. I told them I’d just moved in and they seemed fine with that and handed me a leaflet explaining all the ways I could pay. Once I realised how much it cost, I wrote to them and told them I didn’t need a licence as I did not watch or record television. For two years I have lived and entertained myself without one, by spending time online and learning new things. About a month ago I bought a TV and an X-box, and even plugged in my old DVD player that I’ve had for about eight years. They still write to me, and they still come knocking on my door when I’m out, but my life has been so much better without television. Last night I was asked to house sit for a friend as he didn’t want to leave his dogs all alone, so I thought I’d sit there and watch TV all night as he has a licence and all the Sky TV channels. I watched about thirty minutes of an old Top Gear and switched it off, as there was nothing I wanted to watch on. Living without television is hard at first, but people really are better off without it. If there was no licence fee, I’d probably get a freeview box or something, but I know I can live without it. I’m unemployed btw, and therefore I have plenty of time on my hands, so if I can do it, so can everyone else.

Guest Blogger – Sandy Whitemoor – East London

My Sky package is only £17 per month my box and installation was free I get the BBC channels (although i am aware there maybe an additional charge for a BBC package were they to get rid of the licence fee) I can also record shows i missed so no need for extra video player or DVD player ect. There are cheaper packages availble but we picked to suit our house hold.

my friend has a freeview box £60 (admittidly a rather expensive one) and a video player and a DVD player think of the electricty bein used to record something I know its only a small variance but every little counts in a world where we are tryin to reduce the carbon footprint!!

(more…)

Guest Blogger – Alex Ramerez – Spain

The Beeb have no ownership or partnership with Dave. Dave is an independent channel hosting its own services, and the programmes it airs are bought from the makers, in this case the BBC.
(more…)

Guest Blogger – Jack Somins – Surrey

Having recently graduated from University, I have to say I find it unfair how a hotel is able to buy 1 TV licence to cover 15 rooms, whilst a student living in a hall of residence (under 15 rooms) has to buy 1 TV licence for just that room. Surely this is not fair…
(more…)

Guest Blogger – Missy Ellen – Nottingham

It seems even if you don’t have a TV but own a mobile phone, you still have to purchase a TV licence. My mate came around to use my landline this morning, because she got the following letter.
OFFICIAL WARNING!
To the Legal Occupier,
This is an official warning that the TV Licensing Enforment Division will be proceeding with a full investigation of the above address. This is because there is still no record of a TV Licence at this property, despite our previous letters and visits.

(more…)

Guest Blogger – Jessica Sadler – Liverpool

they can be such morons sometimes, well most times.

After receiving several letters from them insisting i pay up or face consequences literally within a month of gettin my house ( i didnt move in officially for 3 months) I rung them up and said I had no tv in the house and that I did not need a license, in fact I didnt even have my floors down by that point, the guy was like we’ll have to send someone round to confirm this….GO AHEAD there aren’t even any curtains up you can see right through to the back garden mate! After which point I still received more letters so i rang them yet again and basically told them that once i HAD a tv i would start paying for a license to which the person asked do you want to set it up now?…. NO!

(more…)

Guest Blogger – Mark Smith – Widnes

This is what angers me and why we all should stop paying:

Punishing the poor

A fine is the most frequently used punishment in the criminal justice system. This, again, is an instance of the ‘crime of poverty’ considered in this chapter: the fine is imposed on almost all perpetrators of television licence evasion offences, regardless of their gender. Thus, in 1994, 98% of television licence offenders were fined.

Whilst the fine is recovered in most cases, some individuals will default by not paying the fine within the period of time specified by the court. At this stage, the court may sentence them to a term of imprisonment depending on the amount to be paid still outstanding. The court may do this if it is:

(more…)