[exlordlucan]

Originally Posted by slow motion

So if you got caught climbing the fence into a park, you'd commit a criminal offence and be fined?

Yes, that's the licence fee supporters way, isn't it!?

No just a law that would apply say for trespass, unauthorised entry or similar.

Originally Posted by slow motion

Why have an efficient general taxation method of funding when you can have an unfair, bloated, cumbersome expensive way of collecting money - a method which completely disregards ability to pay, a method that excludes people unable to pay as well.

Well if you bother to read posts, instead of cherry pick those you want to argue with, you'll see many here are in favour of taxation over the current system.

Anyway, are you in favour of paying just for public services you only want to use instead of chipping in with the rest of us regardless?

[Elasticband]

Originally Posted by slow motion

There is no requirement for you to have paid any council tax whatsoever (which incidentally is also based on ability to pay, unlike the BBC licence fee) before using libraries, parks or museums.

There is no requirement to have a TV licence to listen to the BBC's radio service or it's i-Player and internet service ....

They are genuinely open and free to use, you won't be prosecuted for using them and no-one will check to see your payment status.

And there are no detector vans looking for people reading library books at home. No Farenheit 451 here yet!!

It's certainly NOT a criminal offence to use libraries, parks or museums if you've not paid any taxes, like council tax.

BBC TV is not like this - you cannot legally use their TV service without paying upfront for a BBC TV licence.

I know licence fee supporters don't want to recognise this important difference, a freely available public service paid out of general taxation vs. a subscription/fee-based one - but that important difference is there for all to see.

Has anyone ever said that paying for the TV licence and paying for parks etc are exactly the same?



Unlike parks etc payed for by the council tax, the TV licence is only required for those that use the service. Not unlike the road fund licence, where if you use a car on the public road a licence is required.

[slow motion]

Originally Posted by iain

if i don't use public libraries or parks, can you explain to me why they are beneficial?

You ought to think why these were introduced. perhaps try and use them and use less telly ian.

Libraries - More reading/literacy makes for a more literate, educated and capable working population. They might get a job saving you some tax paying their benefits.

Parks - healthy outdoor recreation improves physical health, less burden on the health service and less taxes for you. beneficial to wildlife and the environment too! Wildlife isn't just something you can see on the telly ian.

Interesting how BBC licence fee supporters object to paying for parks, museums and libraries - bet they'd like to introduce similar fees here too so they save on a few pounds while those less well-off have to cough up more or can't use them at all.

[Elasticband]

Originally Posted by slow motion

So if you got caught climbing the fence into a park, you'd commit a criminal offence and be fined?

Yes, that's the licence fee supporters way, isn't it!?

Why have an efficient general taxation method of funding when you can have an unfair, bloated, cumbersome expensive way of collecting money - a method which completely disregards ability to pay, a method that excludes people unable to pay as well.

So you would be happy to see an increase in general taxation to pay for it, where every tax payer has to pay irrespective of whether they watch television or not.

Where party political interference could take place if the BBC took a wrong stance on any matter. Never knowing what level of funding they would receive from one year to the next. A true "state broadcaster" in every sense of the word....

[Elasticband]

Originally Posted by slow motion

You ought to think why these were introduced. perhaps try and use them and use less telly ian.

Libraries - More reading/literacy makes for a more literate, educated and capable working population. They might get a job saving you some tax paying their benefits.

Parks - healthy outdoor recreation improves physical health, less burden on the health service and less taxes for you. beneficial to wildlife and the environment too! Wildlife isn't just something you can see on the telly ian.

Interesting how BBC licence fee supporters object to paying for parks, museums and libraries - bet they'd like to introduce similar fees here too so they save on a few pounds while those less well-off have to cough up more or can't use them at all.

Interesting how you make it up as you go along, with such gross generalisations.

Strange, I've never considered you one for such socialist tendencies as free parks, museums, art galleries, libraries etc it's good to see.

[exlordlucan]

Originally Posted by slow motion

You ought to think why these were introduced. perhaps try and use them and use less telly ian.

Libraries - More reading/literacy makes for a more literate, educated and capable working population. They might get a job saving you some tax paying their benefits.

Parks - healthy outdoor recreation improves physical health, less burden on the health service and less taxes for you. beneficial to wildlife and the environment too! Wildlife isn't just something you can see on the telly ian.

So why are there so many illiterate and also overweight and unfit people about, surely my council tax money is going to waste paying for those places?

Originally Posted by slow motion

Interesting how BBC licence fee supporters object to paying for parks, museums and libraries - bet they'd like to introduce similar fees here too so they save on a few pounds while those less well-off have to cough up more or can't use them at all.

No-one has objected to paying for them so quit lying.

[slow motion]

Originally Posted by Elasticband

Interesting how you make it up as you go along, with such gross generalisations.

Strange, I've never considered you one for such socialist tendencies as free parks, museums, art galleries, libraries etc it's good to see.

Gross generalisations? You should aim that at yourself really.

You yourself talk of socialist tendencies, yet even the most capitalist of countries, eg the USA have libraries and parks that are freely open to all.

Along with television freely open to all. Something we don't have.

[Elasticband]

Originally Posted by slow motion

Gross generalisations? You should aim that at yourself really.

Perhaps you can explain your comment..

Interesting how BBC licence fee supporters object to paying for parks, museums and libraries

.. when it's palpably untrue.

You yourself talk of socialist tendencies, yet even the most capitalist of countries, eg the USA have libraries and parks that are freely open to all.

Glad to hear it...

You..?

Along with television freely open to all. Something we don't have.

The vast majority of which would put one off watching television for life.

We should rejoice....

[Vertigo93]

Originally Posted by slow motion

Interesting how BBC licence fee supporters object to paying for parks, museums and libraries.

Really? Has anyone really objected to that?

I'm pretty sure - certain in fact, so I'd just love you to prove otherwise - that they're held up as essentially good but not essential (as in health, policing etc) things for the whole of society even if an individual doesn't get much use out of them.

Which is pretty much the opposite of what you just stated. Spun, even.

[onecitizen]

Originally Posted by iain

ah. so some desirable public services are OK?

so it basically comes down to what you think is desirable?

if i don't use public libraries or parks, can you explain to me why they are beneficial?

Iain

Of course some public services are essential, that goes without saying.
Please stop being so snide in the way you put your point of view across, it doesn't do your arguments any favours.
This is my point of view.
The reason I no longer think that the licence fee is worthwhile is contained within my initial post.

"Sadly, over recent years I believe that the BBC has slowly lost the ability to provide wide ranging and good quality TV and Radio programmes which have wide appeal.
Take comedy for example, at one time the corporation could say with justifiable pride that their comedy output was both high in quality and was watched by a large cross section of the British public.
But when was the last time a BBC sitcom was produced which had appeal to a wide section of people across all age groups and backgrounds ?
The comedy programmes which create most affection in the memory were made a long time ago.
Now all the BBC produces in comedy is “topical” comedy quiz shows, with the same half dozen people seemingly doing and endless round of guest appearances. That’s the way is seems.
Have I got news for you was probably the first and best of this type of programme, and now all we get is endless rehashed versions of this format.
Not everyone likes this kind of snide, sneering humour.
But the people at the BBC love it, so that’s all they are interested in commissioning.
The drama output focuses on wife beating alcoholic drug addicts on council estates, want something uplifting or thought provoking ? Best avoid the Beeb at all costs.
Its got to be “gritty” and make people feel bad about themselves, god knows why.
As for news and current affairs the BBC is the place to go to be depressed, take one example, Afghanistan, the BBC will only report the most negative aspect possible of any situation.
Want to hear about the sense of duty, courage and sacrifice of British forces, the BBC aren’t interested in saying anything about that.
It might suggest something is going right, not nearly dreary enough for them.
Even Andrew Marr, the leading BBC political correspondent has admitted that the BBC is biased.
In defence of the BBC people will put forward David Attenborough and the still excellent documentaries he has a major role in producing, but Attenborough isn’t getting any younger and when he is no longer around there will be precious little to defend the BBC with.
Maybe David Attenborough represents the an older generation of BBC types who had a genuine commitment to quality entertainment.
The current lot seem to be smug, self important over-age student types who are more interested in their own agenda than the needs or interests of the people who are forced by law to pay the over-priced licence fee tax to keep them in their very well paid and comfortable lifestyles.
The only positive thing they seem to think of Britain as a country and the British public,is as an endless cash machine.
While whole sections of that same British public have been marginalised and are ignored ."

[iain]

Originally Posted by slow motion

You ought to think why these were introduced. perhaps try and use them and use less telly ian.

Libraries - More reading/literacy makes for a more literate, educated and capable working population. They might get a job saving you some tax paying their benefits.

Parks - healthy outdoor recreation improves physical health, less burden on the health service and less taxes for you. beneficial to wildlife and the environment too! Wildlife isn't just something you can see on the telly ian.

none of that really explains why they're beneficial if i don't use them.

or is your argument now that even though some people might not use them, other people might?

Interesting how BBC licence fee supporters object to paying for parks, museums and libraries - bet they'd like to introduce similar fees here too so they save on a few pounds while those less well-off have to cough up more or can't use them at all.

not as interesting as the apparent fact that you don't seem to know what hypothetical means.

Iain

[iain]

Originally Posted by onecitizen

Of course some public services are essential, that goes without saying.
Please stop being so snide in the way you put your point of view across, it doesn't do your arguments any favours.
This is my point of view.

i'm not being snide - you just seem to be making it up as you go along.

The reason I no longer think that the licence fee is worthwhile is contained within my initial post.

"Sadly, over recent years I believe that the BBC has slowly lost the ability to provide wide ranging and good quality TV and Radio programmes which have wide appeal.

really?

you're seriously want to argue that this isn't wide ranging and (often) good quality tv?

Take comedy for example, at one time the corporation could say with justifiable pride that their comedy output was both high in quality and was watched by a large cross section of the British public.
But when was the last time a BBC sitcom was produced which had appeal to a wide section of people across all age groups and backgrounds ?

how about gavin and stacey or outnumbered?

The comedy programmes which create most affection in the memory were made a long time ago.
Now all the BBC produces in comedy is “topical” comedy quiz shows, with the same half dozen people seemingly doing and endless round of guest appearances. That’s the way is seems.
Have I got news for you was probably the first and best of this type of programme, and now all we get is endless rehashed versions of this format.
Not everyone likes this kind of snide, sneering humour.
But the people at the BBC love it, so that’s all they are interested in commissioning.

lucky then there's plenty of other comedy. for example :

the thick of it
psychoville
extras
flight of the conchords
gavin and stacey
my family
the green green grass
jam and jerusalem
kath and kim
outnumbered

The drama output focuses on wife beating alcoholic drug addicts on council estates, want something uplifting or thought provoking ? Best avoid the Beeb at all costs.
Its got to be “gritty” and make people feel bad about themselves, god knows why.

that's cobblers too, unless i'm missing the wife beating alcoholic drug addicts in any of :

ashes to ashes
being human
cranford
desperate romantics
hotel babylon
dr who
merlin
inspector george gently
new tricks
no 1 ladies detective agency
occupation
party animals
robin hood
the tudors
spooks
paradox

to name a few.

you might think that the BBC's drama output begins and ends with eastenders or the street, but you'd be wrong.

As for news and current affairs the BBC is the place to go to be depressed, take one example, Afghanistan, the BBC will only report the most negative aspect possible of any situation.
Want to hear about the sense of duty, courage and sacrifice of British forces, the BBC aren’t interested in saying anything about that.
It might suggest something is going right, not nearly dreary enough for them.

unfortunately its a fact of life that most of the news from Afghanistan is bad news. that's certainly not symptomatic of the BBC.

either way, i suppose you missed the recent documentary following two guys returning to the UK as multiple amputees following their battle to recovery?

Even Andrew Marr, the leading BBC political correspondent has admitted that the BBC is biased.

only if his quote is taken out of context.

In defence of the BBC people will put forward David Attenborough and the still excellent documentaries he has a major role in producing, but Attenborough isn’t getting any younger and when he is no longer around there will be precious little to defend the BBC with.
Maybe David Attenborough represents the an older generation of BBC types who had a genuine commitment to quality entertainment.

i assume you also missed the recent excellent series last chance to see with Mark Carwardine?

The current lot seem to be smug, self important over-age student types who are more interested in their own agenda than the needs or interests of the people who are forced by law to pay the over-priced licence fee tax to keep them in their very well paid and comfortable lifestyles.
The only positive thing they seem to think of Britain as a country and the British public,is as an endless cash machine.
While whole sections of that same British public have been marginalised and are ignored ."

i suspect you're being selective again here - who are these self important student types you're referring to?

as for overpriced - how much would you expect the population to get collectively from the BBC?

Iain

[exlordlucan]

Originally Posted by onecitizen

But when was the last time a BBC sitcom was produced which had appeal to a wide section of people across all age groups and backgrounds ?

The comedy programmes which create most affection in the memory were made a long time ago.
Now all the BBC produces in comedy is “topical” comedy quiz shows, with the same half dozen people seemingly doing and endless round of guest appearances.

Well I stopped reading when I got to this part because the sitcom My Family immediately came to mind which tells me that what iain said was about right, ie

"so it basically comes down to what you think is desirable?"

and then I flicked through the rest of your post which confirmed it too.

Mind you it gave me a laugh so perhaps you could send it to the BBC, they might make a sitcom based on it

[carl.waring]

Originally Posted by slow motion

So the licence fee has been abolished then?

No, but there are people who use the BBC services without actually having paid their LF. Or did you not know that?

Originally Posted by exlordlucan

DELETED (for now)

Okay. Now I'm intrigued

Originally Posted by slow motion

It's certainly NOT a criminal offence to use libraries, parks or museums if you've not paid any taxes, like council tax.

True. But try not paying your CT (because, for example, you object to having to pay for parks and libraries you never use) and see what happens

Originally Posted by slow motion

...you cannot legally use their TV service without paying upfront for a BBC TV licence.

Doesn't stop some people from doing so though, does it!

[mRebel]

Originally Posted by CAMERA OBSCURA

So from the link I provided what in your opinion is misleading or is an out and out lie?

The BBC are usually to clever to say anything that could be pinned down as a lie (apart from when enforcing the licence!) but their site implies strongly, as do some here, that without the BBC this broadcasting innovation would have happened a lot later. And the BBC aren't exactly strong on admitting when they were behind the times.

[mRebel]

Originally Posted by exlordlucan

Anyway, are you in favour of paying just for public services you only want to use instead of chipping in with the rest of us regardless?

Libraries (should there be a thread devoted to them?) are, as Slomo said, paid by general taxation, and all can use them regardless of whether they've contributed to their cost. The BBC is funded by a rather differant tax, and again to refer to slomo's words, licence supporters do have a habit of ignoring that differance, as you just have.

[mRebel]

Originally Posted by carl.waring

try not paying your CT (because, for example, you object to having to pay for parks and libraries you never use) and see what happens

Those on the lowest income are exempted from Council tax. Not from the tv licence though. Funny old world, isn't it!

[Vertigo93]

Originally Posted by onecitizen

As for news and current affairs the BBC is the place to go to be depressed, take one example, Afghanistan, the BBC will only report the most negative aspect possible of any situation.

Want to hear about the sense of duty, courage and sacrifice of British forces, the BBC aren’t interested in saying anything about that.

Really? Then I must have dreamt the item on Today this morning concerning the award of a Military Cross for bravery to Able Seaman Kate Nesbitt, who gave lfe saving treatment to an injured soldier for 45 minutes whilst under heavy fire.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8251517.stm

That would be the coverage in September when it was revealed she would receive the medal. She receives the medal today hence Todays revisiting the story.

Equally I must have dreamt the documentary about recovering amputees from Afghanistan, or the focus on rememberence this Rememberence Day on not just WW1 and 2, but current casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Also, could you point me to the happy-go-lucky commercial news outlets that concentrate on happy news?

[CAMERA OBSCURA]

mRebel
The BBC are usually to clever to say anything that could be pinned down as a lie (apart from when enforcing the licence!) but their site implies strongly, as do some here, that without the BBC this broadcasting innovation would have happened a lot later.

Sorry Mrebel, but that is absolutely hilarious, absolutely hilarious.



So even though the BBC are clever not to say anything that could be pinned down as lie, you can see right past that can you? so please tell us what parts of the BBC 'innovations' can you detect as being clever lies, or even bending the truth a little.

You are verging on sociopathic nonsense there I'm afraid.

And the BBC aren't exactly strong on admitting when they were behind the times.

Oh hang on, are we in line for yet another Radio 1/Pirate debate where others tell you a few facts and you completely ignore them to just continue saying pirates pirates pirates. Is that it? it is isnt it, is that where we are going on this one?

[Elasticband]

Originally Posted by mRebel

Those on the lowest income are exempted from Council tax. Not from the tv licence though. Funny old world, isn't it!

But you forget that council tax is compulsory, where having a television isn't...

[PeterB]

Originally Posted by mRebel

The BBC are usually to clever to say anything that could be pinned down as a lie (apart from when enforcing the licence!) but their site implies strongly, as do some here, that without the BBC this broadcasting innovation would have happened a lot later. And the BBC aren't exactly strong on admitting when they were behind the times.

Can we have some examples please.

So you don't rate British engineering?

[CPU]

Originally Posted by Elasticband

But you forget that council tax is compulsory, where having a television isn't...

Owning a TV doesn't require paying the BBC Tax. You forget that Council Tax is not compulsory for various people and types of property, and is not applied on an arbitrary flat-rate per household basis, unlike the TV Licence. The Council Tax system is flawed, certainly, but at least there is some average proportionality applied, and it does generally get spent on important things.

Cheers,
CPU

[slow motion]

Originally Posted by Elasticband

But you forget that council tax is compulsory, where having a television isn't...

With your logic, you could equally be wrong saying the licenmce fee is compulsory, having a house isn't.

Television - licence fee

House - council tax

Mix the two up as you've done and you could say black=white.

Yes, as with televisions, having a house isn't compulsory but, unlike the BBC TV licence, council tax is based on ability to pay and is also price-banded relative to house value, so some pay more than others.

Also the BBC licence fee is spent on telly, whereas council tax is usually spent on more important things like schools, refuse collection.

As someone once amusingly said about the difference, the council take rubbish away from your home, whereas the BBC bring it to your home. Recently saw some of Hole in the Wall in HD and realise what they meant.

[iain]

Originally Posted by mRebel

The BBC are usually to clever to say anything that could be pinned down as a lie (apart from when enforcing the licence!) but their site implies strongly, as do some here, that without the BBC this broadcasting innovation would have happened a lot later. And the BBC aren't exactly strong on admitting when they were behind the times.

that is just outright laughable, and a total 180.

so basically you're argument so far is this :

1. the BBC have claimed to do stuff they actually haven't.

2. when asked for examples of this, you're now changing tac and saying that the BBC have actually said no such thing.

and you wonder why people don't take you seriously...

Iain

[iain]

Originally Posted by mRebel

Libraries (should there be a thread devoted to them?) are, as Slomo said, paid by general taxation, and all can use them regardless of whether they've contributed to their cost. The BBC is funded by a rather differant tax, and again to refer to slomo's words, licence supporters do have a habit of ignoring that differance, as you just have.

yes - but why are they beneficial if *I* don't use them?

that's the part you need to explain....

Iain