Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Is the TV licence worth £145.50 a year?
- Thread starter Dick Head
- Start date
Hampster Gull
Well-known member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,465
Yes
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Yes. where's the poll?
It's a yes from me.
pottert
New member
I pay £84 per month so over £1000 a year for sky which includes the BBC channels so why should I pay another £145 for channels that I technically have already paid for.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,278
Yes the BBC is brilliant.
SteveTheSeagull
I AM A CRIPPLED ALICE FAN
- Feb 14, 2015
- 458
Not if you don't use their services in which i don't but hey ho i still pay. Lawls the lawl.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,031
you're confused, your £84 p/m is for Sky, not for BBC. though this does sort of show the heart of the matter, one you can chose the other you cant. i think its "worth it" but im not sure id pay if i didnt have to. i also wonder how much the bits i use would cost on their own.
i think its time the issue was addressed by revolutionanising what the licence fee goes towards and how BBC is funded. i dont see why BBC shouldnt have some advertising, say between programmes, with a reduced licence fee going to the fringe channels (TV and radio) or fringe TV programmes. ITV, C4 even Sky(?!) could also dip into this money for similar non-commercially viable programming. then the fairness of a TV licence funding BBC sort of resolves itself. they'll have to do something because in a generation so many people will be using iplayer as a free alternative that the current arrangment wont work anymore.
Megazone
On his last warning
Until the Yewtree operation is sorted out, No.
Who are we really funding?
Who are we really funding?
Lord Bracknell
On fire
It's not about you. It's about paying for the BBC. How much of the money that you pay to Sky goes to the BBC?
symyjym
Banned
40p a day just for News24 is worth it.
D
Deleted member 2719
Guest
40p a day is worth it just for the fact they sacked Muppet face clarkson
I'd also give a good 10p a day just to have Susie Perry
OzMike
Well-known member
Seems to have gone up a lot since I left, I remember only paying around 30 quid.
pottert
New member
Enough that the BBC allow them to include it in their basic package.Why should anybody that owns a television have to buy a TV licence to cover the costs of the BBC.Why dosent the BBC just become a subscription service like other channels do so if you want to watch it you pay for it.
I can tell you why because people wont subscribe.
AlastairWatts
Active member
Not without Top Gear, Clarkson, Hammond and May it isn't....
East Preston Gull
New member
No!
Yes. It's remit goes far beyond entertainment, it also provides educational output for children, investigative journalism and documentaries, is able to report critically about itself (unlike Sky and News Corp) and also provides an excellent range of radio channels, that are advert free.
Whilst it is now plays too safe for my liking, it has historically taken risks on new artists and methods of expression. The Goons, Python, Blackadder, Play for Today, John Peel etc are all fantastic products that would not have been given a chance by a commercial channel.
In addition the iPlayer is brilliant, especially if you travel abroad a lot.
The Savile issue has damaged the integrity of the organisation, but remember that Savile also browbeat the police, hospitals and other institutions into silence too.
Whilst it is now plays too safe for my liking, it has historically taken risks on new artists and methods of expression. The Goons, Python, Blackadder, Play for Today, John Peel etc are all fantastic products that would not have been given a chance by a commercial channel.
In addition the iPlayer is brilliant, especially if you travel abroad a lot.
The Savile issue has damaged the integrity of the organisation, but remember that Savile also browbeat the police, hospitals and other institutions into silence too.
Last edited: