Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Express)   No one wants to hand their bank statements to a cable provider (possible nsfw content on page)   (express.co.uk) divider line
    More: Obvious, Channel 4, Television, United Kingdom, BBC, Television licence, Licenses, BBC's decision, free TV licence  
•       •       •

1343 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 03 Aug 2020 at 8:19 AM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



18 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-08-03 7:34:59 AM  
If you don't make them prove it, people will lie.  So either make them prove it or get rid of the fee entirely.
 
2020-08-03 8:12:43 AM  
Nice to see they include a comparison with other countries TV Licences.
Fark user imageView Full Size


And it was the government who stopped paying for these free licences, so blame them.
 
2020-08-03 8:36:07 AM  
You know with the UK's love of big brother and bureaucracy, surely the authorities behind the BBC tax could surely partner up with some other arm of the government that is aware of someone's status for pension and age etc and do all of this right at tax time.

Carter Pewterschmidt: And it was the government who stopped paying for these free licences, so blame them.


So it was some benefits program that operated like I suggested above?  And it got cut but the BBC is still trying to not charge the same people but without that help from the program to identify people or something?

Like usual The Express is not very informative except at the getting people outraged talking points and of course to try and push the 'defund public television' wagon.
 
2020-08-03 9:04:08 AM  
It's the Tory party mouthpiece at this point.
 
2020-08-03 9:52:36 AM  
wait, so you have to pay a separate licensing fee to BBC, which is a broadcasting company for the government, that is supported by your generous tax contributions to the government?

Sounds like yall need a lot more guns ;)
 
2020-08-03 9:57:51 AM  

EvilEgg: If you don't make them prove it, people will lie.  So either make them prove it or get rid of the fee entirely.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-03 10:21:43 AM  

brizzle365: wait, so you have to pay a separate licensing fee to BBC, which is a broadcasting company for the government, that is supported by your generous tax contributions to the government?

Sounds like yall need a lot more guns ;)


The BBC is a quango. There's no tax money involved because when the corporation was founded in 1922 the government decided that it would be unjust to use public revenue paid for by everyone to provide programming for radios that were then expensive luxury items. They also decided that funding through outside advertising would compromise the BBC's charter-mandated independence as they would be encouraged to give positive coverage to commercial sponsors.

The licence fee was the answer. Only those who use the service pay for it and no one could use finances as leverage to influence their content.
 
2020-08-03 10:50:30 AM  
Without Real Top Gear, I see zero reason to pay a BBC license.
 
2020-08-03 11:24:58 AM  

Gordon Bennett: brizzle365: wait, so you have to pay a separate licensing fee to BBC, which is a broadcasting company for the government, that is supported by your generous tax contributions to the government?

Sounds like yall need a lot more guns ;)

The BBC is a quango. There's no tax money involved because when the corporation was founded in 1922 the government decided that it would be unjust to use public revenue paid for by everyone to provide programming for radios that were then expensive luxury items. They also decided that funding through outside advertising would compromise the BBC's charter-mandated independence as they would be encouraged to give positive coverage to commercial sponsors.

The licence fee was the answer. Only those who use the service pay for it and no one could use finances as leverage to influence their content.


That is rather interesting.

Brings up a whole slew of followup questions, but none of those matter, just to satisfy my curiosity.

Biggest question, did it help curtail political content as being biased? Seems that there may be more than one answer to that question, being 2020 and all that jazz.

Thanks for the answer. I will hold off for now on the guns ;)
 
2020-08-03 11:45:53 AM  

brizzle365: Biggest question, did it help curtail political content as being biased? Seems that there may be more than one answer to that question, being 2020 and all that jazz.


One of the major elements of the charters over the years is that the BBC is meant to be independent, impartial and to serve the public as a whole. I can't speak for the past. I don't know enough of the history. I have met several people who work at the BBC and all of them take the charter very, very seriously. As for bias, the most common accusations are from right-wing newspapers who claim the BBC skews left. That may well be possible. On the other hand, as those accusations are right of centre, anyone in the middle would be on the left from their perspective.
 
2020-08-03 12:21:01 PM  

EvilEgg: If you don't make them prove it, people will lie.  So either make them prove it or get rid of the fee entirely.


Kind of like welfare and unemployment.
 
2020-08-03 1:09:27 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: It's the Tory party mouthpiece at this point.


The Tories hate the BBC the way Republicans in the US hate socialised medicine. And a lot of the BBC hate the Tories. But then Labour criticise the BBC as well, so if they're pissing off both sides they're probably doing about right.
This is why the Tories have cut BBC funding, this and the World Service that the government used to pay for as well.

Gordon Bennett: brizzle365: wait, so you have to pay a separate licensing fee to BBC, which is a broadcasting company for the government, that is supported by your generous tax contributions to the government?

Sounds like yall need a lot more guns ;)

The BBC is a quango. There's no tax money involved because when the corporation was founded in 1922 the government decided that it would be unjust to use public revenue paid for by everyone to provide programming for radios that were then expensive luxury items. They also decided that funding through outside advertising would compromise the BBC's charter-mandated independence as they would be encouraged to give positive coverage to commercial sponsors.

The licence fee was the answer. Only those who use the service pay for it and no one could use finances as leverage to influence their content.


Yep, makes more sense today to just fund it from taxes. Ireland were going to do that a couple of years ago and scrap their TV licence but they didn't in the end.
 
2020-08-03 2:47:08 PM  

bfh0417: EvilEgg: If you don't make them prove it, people will lie.  So either make them prove it or get rid of the fee entirely.

Kind of like welfare and unemployment.


Making them disclose as much information as is required for welfare or unemployment would be massive overkill to verify a fee waiver this small.

That'd be like requiring a blood donation and full gene sequence to get a library card.

Just a bank account statement or copy of a letter of payment from the benefits office should be sufficient.
 
2020-08-03 3:20:17 PM  

Gordon Bennett: brizzle365: Biggest question, did it help curtail political content as being biased? Seems that there may be more than one answer to that question, being 2020 and all that jazz.

One of the major elements of the charters over the years is that the BBC is meant to be independent, impartial and to serve the public as a whole. I can't speak for the past. I don't know enough of the history. I have met several people who work at the BBC and all of them take the charter very, very seriously. As for bias, the most common accusations are from right-wing newspapers who claim the BBC skews left. That may well be possible. On the other hand, as those accusations are right of centre, anyone in the middle would be on the left from their perspective.


Not really up on the differences between parties on that side of the pool, so cant say either way. But the accusations have been around since the 80's, it would appear.
Sure, all of it could be BS, but as they say, there is a sliver of truth behind every lie.
The BBC controls the majority of TV and Radio broadcasting there, right?
 
2020-08-03 3:30:02 PM  

brizzle365: Gordon Bennett: brizzle365: Biggest question, did it help curtail political content as being biased? Seems that there may be more than one answer to that question, being 2020 and all that jazz.

One of the major elements of the charters over the years is that the BBC is meant to be independent, impartial and to serve the public as a whole. I can't speak for the past. I don't know enough of the history. I have met several people who work at the BBC and all of them take the charter very, very seriously. As for bias, the most common accusations are from right-wing newspapers who claim the BBC skews left. That may well be possible. On the other hand, as those accusations are right of centre, anyone in the middle would be on the left from their perspective.

Not really up on the differences between parties on that side of the pool, so cant say either way. But the accusations have been around since the 80's, it would appear.
Sure, all of it could be BS, but as they say, there is a sliver of truth behind every lie.
The BBC controls the majority of TV and Radio broadcasting there, right?


The government have no editorial control, it was the BBC who revealed the then government sexed up the Iraq WMD dossier that was used to justify the Iraq war for example.
And there are plenty of rival broadcasters. Sky News has a 24 hour news channel that is very good, despite being a Murdoch operation until a couple of years ago. Comcast bought them. The BBC certainly don't have a monopoly on broadcasting or news.
 
2020-08-03 4:23:10 PM  
Once again 2 big corporations make their rules into the vulnerable people's problem. It would be nothing for the government to send the BBC a list of people who don't have to pay. Any DB admin could export that list in seconds.
 
2020-08-03 5:41:48 PM  

Carter Pewterschmidt: brizzle365: Gordon Bennett: brizzle365: Biggest question, did it help curtail political content as being biased? Seems that there may be more than one answer to that question, being 2020 and all that jazz.

One of the major elements of the charters over the years is that the BBC is meant to be independent, impartial and to serve the public as a whole. I can't speak for the past. I don't know enough of the history. I have met several people who work at the BBC and all of them take the charter very, very seriously. As for bias, the most common accusations are from right-wing newspapers who claim the BBC skews left. That may well be possible. On the other hand, as those accusations are right of centre, anyone in the middle would be on the left from their perspective.

Not really up on the differences between parties on that side of the pool, so cant say either way. But the accusations have been around since the 80's, it would appear.
Sure, all of it could be BS, but as they say, there is a sliver of truth behind every lie.
The BBC controls the majority of TV and Radio broadcasting there, right?

The government have no editorial control, it was the BBC who revealed the then government sexed up the Iraq WMD dossier that was used to justify the Iraq war for example.
And there are plenty of rival broadcasters. Sky News has a 24 hour news channel that is very good, despite being a Murdoch operation until a couple of years ago. Comcast bought them. The BBC certainly don't have a monopoly on broadcasting or news.


Thats not exactly answering the question, so I went ahead and a cursory look, and from what I can gather about that situation is that the BBC does control the majority of it, at least by viewing share, on week to week basis.

I really don't know why this matters, i have a penchant for asking useless questions that provide useless answeres that only I would give a shiat about.

Thanks for the info
 
2020-08-03 9:36:58 PM  

brizzle365: Thats not exactly answering the question, so I went ahead and a cursory look, and from what I can gather about that situation is that the BBC does control the majority of it, at least by viewing share, on week to week basis.


The BBC do not "control" anything. There are lots of other broadcasters, and free to air, satellite and cable platforms. The BBC are one of the owners of the terrestrial FTA platform, which they rescued when then owner ITV bailed out and it went bust, but the BBC are only one partner, along with ITV, Chanel 4 and Sky, and tech company Arquiva, so they do not "control" it by any means. Sky is a huge platform, and millions of BBC viewers, including myself, watch BBC channels through the Sky platform, which is owned and controlled by Sky, now part of Comcast. The biggest cable player is Virgin Media, owned by Liberty of the US.

Viewing share is not "control" in that people choose to watch BBC channels. They can easily choose from many other channels, and for movies and sports very much do with huge sporting rights like football, F1, cricket etc all being on Sky. Some key sporting events, like Wimbledon, are protected by law and must be free to air, but can be on ITV just as easily as the BBC. ITV outbid the BBC for FTA football Premier League rights in 2000, and outbid the BBC for the boat race in 2004. In entertainment the BBC was outbid for The Voice and the Great British Bake Off, both of which were big hit shows on the BBC but moved to ITV and Channel 4 after they outbid the BBC.

The BBC doesn't even own many of the hit shows people associate with them. Sherlock? Made and owned by Hartswood. QI? Made and owned by Talkback. Life On Mars? made and owned by Kudos. Mock The Week? Angst Productions and many many more. These production companies own these shows and get all the profit, the foreign sales, the repeat fees, the foreign remakes etc. By law at least 25% of BBC output must be made by indie production companies, and BBC policy is to go up to 50%.
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.