End the BBC Licence Fee - Petition

[threegee]

We are pretty used to the usual BBC "audience selection" process, and the internet is full of reports about how people were grilled about their views (and told what they could and could not say) before they were allowed into the Question Time audience.  But... last night's election debate had to be one of the most desperate attempts by the BBC to sway public opinion in its history.  There are even reports of the BBC paying people's hotel bills out of our licence fees so they could draw on people of suitable views.  Both ITV and Sky can have proven they can stage a pretty free debate, but it seems that this is quite beyond the overpaid executives at the BBC.

 

Apart from audience selection bias the BBC have been ordered not to use "the worm" by the House of Lords, who took compelling academic evidence that it's a very powerful tool to warp people's freely held beliefs. Yet, the BBC have ignored this and continue to use it in combination with their careful audience selection.  The excuses for this are risible; they run along the lines of we hear what you say, but we know better about providing viewer satisfaction, and it's really just experimental anyway.

 

Maybe you don't feel as strongly about BBC Bias as I do, but the petition site contains many other reasons why we shouldn't be compelled to shell out our hard earned cash to a near state monopoly, and you'll surely find other reasons you can enthusiastically support.  Please sign the petition.

 

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/end-the-bbc-licence-fee
 

Is 38 Degrees connected to a political party?

Definitely not. We are not connected with any political parties, and are funded entirely by donations from members. Our independence means we can campaign on issues that we feel passionately about and that we decide on together. We are driven by issues and outcomes, and judge all politicians by the same standards.

[threegee]

Well... does the BBC really have a conscience, or are they simply in tactical retreat?  Either way it indicates that all the complaints were justified, and that the David Dimbleby protestations aren't tenable.

 

Victory for Ukip: BBC backs down and gives Farage his own TV show after debate fix row

 

Maybe the latest Survation/Daily Mirror poll had something to do with this, as it utterly confounds the constant drumbeat on every BBC show that the Ukip vote is faltering.  I bet they don't mention that the Green support is now showing at only 3% though.

 

The most instructive thing about Thursday's debate was what happened at the end.

 

 

The coven of ladies (who are up for spending money we haven't got) formed a dutiful queue - in strict order of seniority - for their ministerial roles in Ed's minority coalition government.  Ms Sturgeon is just about curtseying for the honour.  But, once the knot is tied, you don't need much imagination to work out who'll be "wearing the trousers".

[threegee]

[Symptoms]

I take the opposite view to GGG regarding our sacred Auntie.  Yep, she may have her faults but just look at the alternative ... wall-to-wall ITV3 type offer all in hock to big advertisers.  I'd urge all reasonable folks here not to vote in this daft petition.

[mercuryg]

Symptoms, you mean you dont watch Dave!

[Alan Edgar (Eggy1948)]

I'm with Symptoms, prefer BBC. I do have SKY sports. Would prefer to go to the pub and watch a match(even more so the way NUFC are not performing and at least I could get some enjoyment out of a pint), but out of the question - can't stand for 10 mins, never mind 2 hours, these days.

BBC income per household = current colour TV licence costs - £145.50. Don't know if the BBC will still get an income from UKTV for them showing only BBC programs on Dave? 

SKY - difficult to work out what the full package would cost but has to be between £70 - £80 per month - so just say £900 a year.

 

Could the BBC do better than SKY on £900 a year? 

If you scrap the license fee all together would that just mean a ) additional rental charges similar to SKY and b ) more adverts?

[Ovalteeny]

More bliddy adverts, methinks

[Smudgeinthebudge]

BBC is probably the best broadcaster in the world and I do not mind paying my licence fee. I cannot see any commercial broadcaster coming up to the standards of the beeb. They certainly do not at present. On principle I wouldn't buy anything from Murdoch. Also in political broadcasting the BBC has always been accused of bias by all sides, they must be getting something right. The commercial stations are guaranteed to be on one side only - their own, for making money.

[Symptoms]

So far it's GGG's BLOCK VOTE of 3 against 4 INDIVIDUAL MEMBER VOTES and 1 UNDECIDED (merc).  Me thinks that GGG is behaving like one of his favourite Trade Union Barons.  Syms says, "One person, one vote".

Edited April 20, 2015 by Symptoms

[Maggie/915]

The BBC has my vote, for what it is worth.

[Ovalteeny]

Better the devil you know than the ................

[threegee]

The petition is about scrapping the licence fee folks.  It's NOT about scrapping the BBC, or about the BBC taking advertising.  It would actually be more instructive if you'd read the reasoning on the actual petition and say exactly what you disagreed with.

 

Those who currently get a free licence could well change their minds once Labour or the Tories scrap the concession. Like the winter heating allowance it's low hanging fruit for the next round of cuts.  In case its escaped your attention none of LIbLabCon has ruled this out.  In fact Labour is probably best placed to do the deed, as they have less to worry about from "the grey lobby".  Remember prescription charges?
 

And, regarding the BBC bias: yes, people have always complained, but those complaints have always come from across the political spectrum.  That's certainly not what is happening now; the BBC is now near totally colonised by ex-Guardinistas who see it as their purpose in life no longer to inform but to filter and indoctrinate.  That's pretty much why Paxo and others quit.  The attitude to things like "climate change" is telling; it's now no longer necessary to represent a spectrum of views, because the BBC has decided that debate is not "socially useful".  But, it's far more sinister than harmless lefties driving the agenda: it has become the mouthpiece of the forthcoming European superstate.  That should be of concern to any thinking person, and to anyone that values their liberty!  Do not fool yourselves that this is the BBC we once knew.  However patronising and class-ridden that was, that BBC was near transparent in what it did.  Like other things in this world it's now trading on a long established brand label that doesn't truly represent the contents of the tin, and hoping that not too many people notice.

[Maggie/915]

The BBC do not have the monopoly on biased viewpoints.

Surely we all have the ability to decide for ourselves what we believe and what we do not.

The petition may represent the true position but is more likely just another viewpoint..

Who wrote it and why?

Can they claim to be without bias?

[Alan Edgar (Eggy1948)]

The petition is about scrapping the licence fee folks.  It's NOT about scrapping the BBC, or about the BBC taking advertising.  It would actually be more instructive if you'd read the reasoning on the actual petition and say exactly what you disagreed with.

 

Those who currently get a free licence could well change their minds once Labour or the Tories scrap the concession. Like the winter heating allowance it's low hanging fruit for the next round of cuts.  In case its escaped your attention none of LIbLabCon has ruled this out.  In fact Labour is probably best placed to do the deed, as they have less to worry about from "the grey lobby".  Remember prescription charges?

 

And, regarding the BBC bias: yes, people have always complained, but those complaints have always come from across the political spectrum.  That's certainly not what is happening now; the BBC is now near totally colonised by ex-Guardinistas who see it as their purpose in life no longer to inform but to filter and indoctrinate.  That's pretty much why Paxo and others quit.  The attitude to things like "climate change" is telling; it's now no longer necessary to represent a spectrum of views, because the BBC has decided that debate is not "socially useful".  But, it's far more sinister than harmless lefties driving the agenda: it has become the mouthpiece of the forthcoming European superstate.  That should be of concern to any thinking person, and to anyone that values their liberty!  Do not fool yourselves that this is the BBC we once knew.  However patronising and class-ridden that was, that BBC was near transparent in what it did.  Like other things in this world it's now trading on a long established brand label that doesn't truly represent the contents of the tin, and hoping that not too many people notice.

You read into the petition what you want to and I read into the petition what I want to. The way I see it is the BBC needs funds, just like ALL the other channels. The other Channels did not have to be launched in competition with the BBC but they were, and used advertising to fund them. My argument stays with me - the BBC needs funds - I don't like advertising - I will pay the license fee.     

[Andy Brown]

I'd quite happily throw the TV out of the window as there's nothing but utter rubbish on, however in keeping with the point in question, I'd rather *NOT* pay a forced tax on channel (s) I don't watch.

 

I had bother with the Tv license people for 5 years threatening court action, detector van visits and all sorts of nonsense when I did have a TV, but didn't have it plugged into an aerial socket. Each time I was told that I had a device capable of receiving a TV signal, and each time i'd reply I have a device capable of holding milk but I don't have a cow, I buy it when I need it and don't pay a yearly/monthly fee for the pleasure. 

[mercuryg]

3G, without the licence fee, how does the BBC get funds? This is is why it IS as much about advertising as anything else. Once again, your high horse attitude grates. We are not stupid, we can read, just like you, and we can also reach our own conclusions which, you may be surprised to find, don't always match your own.

[Vic Patterson]

What is the licence for? is it to receive all TV signals? does that include cable, satellite and computer? Who has to pay and who is excused? Who receives the money?

[threegee]

Wow I'm out there raving on my own am I Merc?  Well - another personal attack from you aside - polling shows about a 70:30 split in favour of abolishing the licence fee.  Even if I were in a small minority I have a right not to be censured, exactly like you!

 

we can also reach our own conclusions which, you may be surprised to find, don't always match your own.

 

I'm not surprised, I'd just like to hear them!  We can have a discussion about alternative methods of funding the BBC, but it was a perfectly valid to point out that the petition does not mention BBC funding at all, and it simply isn't about funding.

 

There's a significant body of opinion in broadcasting circles that the BBC doesn't need to be as big as it is.  It regularly outgrows the licence fee and has to be pruned.  That's like any self perpetuating organisation that's lost sight of its original purpose; presumably you've come across a bit of Kafka on your travels?

 

There are numerous ways of funding what the BBC does without dragging people before the courts and criminalising them. (The petition puts this better than I do.)  A lot of what the BBC does though is very me-too, and would be just as well done by commercial companies (actually it already is, but the BBC intersperses itself in the transactions).  Public service broadcasting is very good at what it does well, and I don't hear any suggestions that it shouldn't continue to do that.  But, we are no longer living in the 1960's and its relatively simple to deliver the programs to those who are willing to fund them directly, and allow those who don't want to pay to opt out.

[threegee]

What is the licence for? is it to receive all TV signals? does that include cable, satellite and computer? Who has to pay and who is excused? Who receives the money?

 

Yes, it's to receive ALL live TV and radio broadcasts.  No, there's nothing provided.

 

Everyone who uses a TV to receive any live broadcasts is compelled to pay, even if they don't watch the BBC.  Same goes for watching live programs over the Internet. Does this include live ITV and other broadcasters over the Internet?  Ummm.. I don't know, and yes it's crazy and getting steadily crazier.  You can end up with a criminal record if you don't pay, and many do end up criminalised.

 

How does anyone know you are watching live TV over the Internet without a licence when its not encrypted?  Don't ask, because you won't believe the answer!

 

Who receives the money?  Mainly (but not exclusively) the BBC.  ITV doesn't get a bean.

 

Who decides who receives the money?  Only the great and the good.

 

Over 75's get excused, but that could be withdrawn quite soon. Blind people seem to get a 50% reduction if they do all the right things.  (So, according to the law, a totally blind person could end up in jail for "watching TV" )

[Vic Patterson]

Thank you 3G that clarifies it somewhat, I suppose the system has just evolved this way, I don't think it would fly if it was a "new†idea!

I really like BBC produced shows but we never see anything U.K. political, thank goodness as ours and the U.S. is bad enough. I do have the BBC set as my home page as I like their World news, sport etc compared to the U.S. version!

[mercuryg]

Not a personal attack at all, I simply don't appreciate being talked down to. You continually belittle others by implying that if they don't toe your line they are not, for example, a 'thinking person', and similar. It's rather inconsiderate.

[threegee]

Well, urging people to turn on their brains is a lot better than those on the left who work on the premise that people don't have one!  At least I'm not telling people what they must think, and how they should think, or shouting them down!  You'll note that the left is particularly prone to attacks on the messenger when they find the message unpalatable - those 'ist accusations are rather one-sided.

 

 

There's a lot of indoctrination going on in the UK at present.  More than I've ever seen in my lifetime, and it's particularly targeted at the young.  I for one am no longer prepared to sit there and take it.  I'm no conspiracy theorist, nor alone in this belief.  If I'm too "smug", then you are appointed my moral guardian in this respect; please feel free to de-smugify all further postings and/or provide background "health warnings". Hopefully though this won't dominate the discussion, and we can stay on topic, most of the time.

[Symptoms]

I made the arguement earlier that the alternative is something like wall-to-wall ITV3;  I was wrong, it'll be type of wall-to-wall Fox ... the natural home for the Yankee Tea Party and nutty right wing fellow travellers. 

[willy j.]

3G, just a question on the funding of the BBC. Is it true that they are funded to some degree by the EU, and if this is true by how much?

[threegee]

3G, just a question on the funding of the BBC. Is it true that they are funded to some degree by the EU, and if this is true by how much?

 

I don't know Willy - haven't researched it, but the BBC would be in pole position to deny it if it were untrue and they don't!  There's no doubt that C4 is bought and paid for by the EU though.

 

Prove me wrong someone, but I believe it's the worst kind of subsidy.  Not a blanket subsidy but where individual programs are funded - programs that project what Brussels wants to hear, and suppress what they don't want to hear.  And - like all EU funding - it's our very own money being turned against British democracy, and toward an entirely undemocratic future European superstate.  We have almost an entire generation carefully nurturing the eggs of the EU Cuckoo when only a minority of the population are screaming pitch them out of the nest before it's too late!

 

The European Scrutiny Committee found in a report in March that the corporation's coverage of the EU was biased and letting down viewers.

 

It's utterly disgraceful that we should even need to pass a law to force the BBC to abandon its EU propaganda campaign, but this seems to be necessary.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11664797/BBC-could-be-forced-by-law-to-cover-EU-referendum-impartially.html

 

If Bill Cash et al don't get their amendment through we can look forward to torrents of EU BS from establishment media trying to swing the referendum.  That's in addition to all the off-shore tactics that will be used - all paid for by our own EU contributions, as per usual.