Are you happy to pay for a tv licence?

[Guinness Boy]

The wife has just said, in response to something on the Marr programme, "no one wants to pay their tv licence". To which I replied I was so long as the BBC remained advert free and independent. I do suspect I am in a minority now - and that minority is shrinking - but I don't believe for a minute that no one wants to pay it and I believe it represents far better value than my Sky package.

 

[Notters]

Yes, the BBC is fantastic and actually think the license fee should go up.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The BBC has to stay and has to remain by licence. Not only is the quality of output generally high it, in my opinion, promotes the UK globally in a positive and unparalleled manner. It is respected world wide. And this is due to the nature of its funding.

 

[Bozza]

It's about £150 a year isn't it? An amazing bargain.

 

[Beach Hut]

Best TV station globally by a country mile, should remain as it is.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Well worth the fee - just as long as there are no ads

*** awaits one of the conspiracy crew posting some claptrap ***

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I've always been happy to pay the licence fee. How anyone complains about it, when it is so much cheaper than all the other pay TV companies, is beyond me. We are lucky to have the BBC, and it must continue in its present form

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

A quick peak at the BBC and ITV World Cup coverage should answer this.

 

[portlock seagull]

Not if Phil Neville keeps co commentating.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Thumbs all round. NSC has cheered me up so far this morning.

 

[Beach Hut]

A quick peak at the BBC and ITV World Cup coverage should answer this.

Or any other global event like a Royal Wedding etc. ITV World Cup coverage is a shambles

 

[Triggaaar]

I'd like the BBC to do less and charge less. They could drop some of the stuff that's well covered by the freeview channels, and concentrate on what they're good at.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The wife has just said, in response to something on the Marr programme, "no one wants to pay their tv licence". To which I replied I was so long as the BBC remained advert free and independent. I do suspect I am in a minority now - and that minority is shrinking - but I don't believe for a minute that no one wants to pay it and I believe it represents far better value than my Sky package.

Why do you think you're in the minority?

 

[8ace]

Yes, but on the proviso they sack that c*nt Mark Bright.

 

[Fungus]

Thumbs all round. NSC has cheered me up so far this morning.

Go easy on your wife - don't gloat too much.

 

[desprateseagull]

I don't think it should be mandatory. I get the feeling some programme makers sometimes cruise along, knowing they get paid regardless how good/bad they are..

payment by results, eh?

 

[TonyW]

No.

 

[dougdeep]

Yes, but they could cut the channels and radio stations down a bit to keep the costs down.

 

[drew]

I don't think it should be mandatory. I get the feeling some programme makers sometimes cruise along, knowing they get paid regardless how good/bad they are..

payment by results, eh?

Perhaps you could back up your argument with some examples, both in programmes and how you define results?

I'd like the BBC to do less and charge less. They could drop some of the stuff that's well covered by the freeview channels, and concentrate on what they're good at.

If every household has to pay the fee then the BBC has to cater for every household. Somebody who enjoys things like Pointless, Eastenders, Casualty etc should not be expected to pay the fee only for the BBC to not to produce those programmes and merely produce what some decides they 'are good at'!

Let's not forget that the fee pays for the various television channels but also a host of radio stations covering a diverse mix of tastes.

Finally, I genuinely believe that without the BBC, the race to the bottom would begin.

 

[desprateseagull]

Maybe cut out radio smug. er, one.