The very many questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread XXIV

[Borachio]

The BBC doesn't have adverts. That's easily a win.

It certainly is. But even the BBC not having adverts hasn't persuaded me to buy another TV.

And you wouldn't believe the grief I've had off the TV licensing authorities. They simply refused to believe I didn't have a TV for a very long time; and regularly sent me menacing letters.

They've backed off a bit in the last few years - owing to the outrage expressed by some vociferous non-TV owners.

I've a feeling it's only temporary.

Still, the BBC and the National Health Service are two of the few reasonably good things about the UK. Yet, isn't there some talk about selling off the BBC?

 

[Traitorfish]

The license is only about £140 year per household, which at just over a tenner a month is cheaper than the satellite plans most people fork out for anyway. (And they still ask you to sit through adverts every ten minutes, cheeky bastards!) It's possible to over-state how much we're getting for that money, especially as the BBC has recently become a bit of a cause célèbre among liberal-minded Britons, but it really is worth the money. And I say that as somebody who doesn't even really watch that much television.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, tell them to get off their butts and raise the tax already. I want more Dr. Who and Sherlock.

 

[Borachio]

No more Hercule Poirot, though. He's disappeared up his own David Suchet.

Still, that's ITV for you. A nouveau venu since 1954.

 

[Quackers]

The BBC needs to be investigated for the whole Savill thing. We mayneed to sack everybody and reboot the whole organisation.

 

[Arakhor]

Because that would be a sensible and moderate thing to do. :sagenod:

 

[Traitorfish]

I'd be seriously willing to back that, provided we applied the same approach to the banks, parliament, military and police. But somehow I think Quackers may draw up just a little short of that...

 

[Quackers]

I have a strong feeling that the individuals who knew about Savill's criminal activities on BBC premises but turned a blind eye have to be outed and investigated. The BBC, in my mind, have been tainted and it will remain tainted untill we know everything that took place and can take the appropriate action.

As it stands the BBC have gotten away with it. All of the high quality programming it produces is no excuse. To be fair progress has been made, Stuart Hall comes to mind. Still, people like Esther Rantzen the founder of Childine who did nothing about it and then tried to save her own reputation are beyond the pale...

Well, we know a senior Conservative in the Thatcher goverment has been accused as a perpetrator (unknown); the brainless Sally Bercow accused one former minister which turned out to be false. That is the last we have heard of it - what next?

 

[Borachio]

Look how much it costs to sack one person from the BBC!!!!

How much would it cost to sack everyone?

We're talking pounds here.

 

[bhsup]

I cannot fathom having to pay the government for the privilege of having a TV aerial in my home hooked up to a TV. Commercials anyday. Seriously. That UK method is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard of, and I've heard of communism!

 

[sophie]

The way I was told, American narrators are far too dramatic, the music is always the same annoying loop, and the effects are much worse and cheesier. The examples they brought up was comparing The Apprentice to American Apprentice, Britain's Got Talent to American Idol, and Masterchef to American Masterchef.

In response to your assertion that British documentarians are in some way...better than American ones I provide counterpoint A:


Link to video.

Perhaps one of the most offensive, vaguely racist historical documentaries I've ever seen.

Also his entire: History of the British series is not much better.

 

[Wrymouth3]

In regards to the assertion as well about British documentaries. Great Britain also has much trashier publications than potentially anybody in the world (The Sun, etc...).

 

[Mise]

The license is only about £140 year per household, which at just over a tenner a month is cheaper than the satellite plans most people fork out for anyway. (And they still ask you to sit through adverts every ten minutes, cheeky bastards!) It's possible to over-state how much we're getting for that money, especially as the BBC has recently become a bit of a cause célèbre among liberal-minded Britons, but it really is worth the money. And I say that as somebody who doesn't even really watch that much television.

£12 per month is a LOT of money when your wages are already low and being squeezed. Whether or not it's worth the money is rather dependent on what else you could have spent the money on. The fact that the license fee is inherently regressive is pretty galling.

If it were paid for via general taxation, I would have absolutely no problem with an independent, state-funded media company, with a strict mandate for public service and an arms length regulatory, legal and financial structure. But funding it through a regressive tax is just a terrible, terrible idea. It made a lot more sense when TV and radio were the preserve of the rich, and there were genuinely no other options than watching BBC programming, but those times have changed, and it's time we started funding the BBC is a fairer, more progressive way. Fund it the same way that basically every other public service is funded.

 

[Arakhor]

Not that I disagree, Mise, but can you really imagine the Tories being responsible for BBC funding? You'd have to start providing documentary evidence that you don't watch ITV, your shopping lists will be scrutinised to make sure you don't buy DVDs from rival companies and they'd institute a paywall to watch the iPlayer.

 

[Mise]

Eh? The Tories wouldn't be running anything. It would be run exactly the same way as now, except it would be paid for through a progressive tax rather than a poll tax.

 

[Grendeldef]

Sorry guys & girls - I'm getting old & TV isn't too high on my priorities apart from sporting events so I've unintentionally spread misinformation. Apparently finally something has happened and license fees are here no more but YLE will be funded by taxes and those who have already paid for this year's fee will be refunded, cool.

I cannot fathom having to pay the government for the privilege of having a TV aerial in my home hooked up to a TV. Commercials anyday. Seriously. That UK method is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard of, and I've heard of communism!

At the time it was implemented it probably was a very practical solution to a funding problem. At which point funding tv by general taxation becomes better than a targeted fee is open for debate but had there been no governmental intervention locally to start broadcasting we'd have tv on the 70s rather than 50s.
UK obviously is much more populous and has more commercial potential so the reasons might not be equal but personally I prefer fee over commercials - I'd happily pay extra if could get rid off channel logos, too.

Probably scaring people here but it's not the most stupid thing and I'm reasonably familiar with communism - this practice sounds exactly like capitalism; one pays for what one uses.

 

[Arakhor]

Did you see that minister’s recent bizarre threat to cut the BBC’s funding? Given the Tories’ well-known reputation for attempting to squeeze or obfuscate the welfare budget however they can, I’m just not at all confident that they wouldn’t try to make it “fairer” and simply end up (deliberately or otherwise) sticking the knife in the most at need again.

 

[Peck of Arabia]

If money's that tight, you could always opt for a black and white TV license for a bargain £49 for the year- though getting a black and white television might be a problem... or you could get rid of your TV altogether, and watch programs on iPlayer- you only need to the license to watch programs as they're being broadcast.

I doubt there would be this opt out or mitigation if it were rolled into general taxation- and if it were you'd probably spend more than the money you saved calling HMRC on an 0845 number to explain the situation.

 

[Grendeldef]

Just out of curiosity - does the UK TV license cover both terrestrial & satellite broadcasts or are satellite channels free?

Locally this came up in the 90s when satellite channels became widely available and as YLE didn't have satellite broadcasting it couldn't charge for it so in practice if the terrestrial receiver part was removed from a tv set & then the set sealed one was freed from paying the yearly fee while being able to watch satellite channels all day long.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

In response to your assertion that British documentarians are in some way...better than American ones I provide counterpoint A:

Spoiler :

Link to video.

Perhaps one of the most offensive, vaguely racist historical documentaries I've ever seen.

Also his entire: History of the British series is not much better.

The British history documentaries that they always say are the best ones are those done by Neil Oliver, like "The History of Scotland", "The History of Ancient Britain", and "The Face of Britain".

I guess I never used any good examples of American documentaries. The one I mentioned to them was called "Rome: Engineering an Empire" from the History Channel, but they just dismissed it.