TV Licencing...Quite clever really

dont think anyone is listening :roll: choo choo here comes the propoganda train.

all countries pay a TV licence. BBC or no BBC, so would we.

at least we have the BBC for our tv tax, its not just squandered on local govenment :roll:

For comparison

Austria - average 280 euros
Belgium - €149.67 for a TV and €26.72 for a car radio
Denmark is 2,150 kr[10] (around €28:cool:
Finland is between €224.30 and €232.20
France (mainland & Corsica) is €116
Germany is €204.36 per annum for TV and radio, and €66.24 for just radio
Iceland the TV Licence is 32 460 kr[23] (around €346.59
Republic of Ireland is €160
Italy was €106.00

These are all mandatory licences, not 'optional'.


etc etc

The BBC makes extra revenue by selling its programmes overseas, 75% by the licence and 25% by selling.

So by other countries buying our programmes, the bbc can make better programmes for us. So again, another advantage to us, we only pay for 75% of what we watch.
 
They make a lot of programmes that no commercial organisation would ever make, and for that I salute them. Even though I don't have a TV license. Or a TV. ;)
I think the real jewel in the BBCs crown is the radio. A brilliant service, available for free, anywhere in the world. The World Service is very important to many people, even though the internet is here. And our Radio stations are great too.
Commercial radio is just awful, playing the same songs again and again, and after every third song playing five minutes of advertising.
If there was no BBC, I'd have to learn to play an instrument.
 
Bearing in mind the cost of a Sky subscription I'd say the license fee is cheap. The average Sky subscriber pays over £600 per year!

Having lived in Asia and had US channels via Star, where 20 mins per hour are ads, we don't know how lucky we are.
 
crud":1s8nzrs2 said:
dont think anyone is listening :roll:

Why? Because they're still anti license fee despite you saying that its ok? :roll:

Just becasue other countries have a form of license fee too doesn't make it right, it just means that all the countries are wrong.

I live in Cheltenham, a town with just over 100 000 inhabitants. Jonathan Ross' pay deal is the equivalent of every single person in Cheltenham giving Ross their License fee for a year, and more. 126,000 licence fees went into his £18m deal. You're happy with that are you?

When schools are offering sub-standard education, our health service is at breaking point, roads are crumbling beneath our tyres and people in our armed services are being killed because of lack of finance for proper equipment, you're happy that you're legally obliged to pay nearly £150 a year to fund a few TV channels that may or may not offer a service that you use?

Personally I'd rather my £150 went straight into general taxation for use in health, schooling, roads etc and I had the option of choosing who I pay for my 'entertainment' services.

I am listening to you.. I just think you're wrong.
 
Russell":188ciw4a said:
crud":188ciw4a said:
dont think anyone is listening :roll:

Stuff

I can empathise with your point of you, but alas I also think your wrong.

in my opinion there is no way on this earth that any uk government would ever let anything as lucrative as a tv service go untaxed. I am grateful that at this present moment in time it is spent on the tv, not just another hidden tax such as road tax.
 
^ It sure would :cool:

its mad it started as praise for the (payment) service :LOL:

We all need a holiday. RB hol paid by taxes with personal saucy
masseuse/masseur for those harsh rides... :cool: :idea: :D
 
If you think the BBC is a waste of time and money, I suggest you move somewhere outside the UK. You'll soon be missing X, Y, or Z, but also realise that without a strong Public Service Broadcaster as competition, commercial TV just goes mental with ads every 8 minutes and self promotion that makes anything done in the UK (by anyone, BBC or otherwise) look completely selfless in comparison.

The BBC is one thing I miss about home...
 
Back
Top