advertisement


Are we getting pissed off with the BBC

You quoted me in part:

"I am not going to make a list of what I don't care for about the BBC, but a clue may be found in the observation that I gave up on it eighteen years ago."

rbrown said:
I wouldn't be able to make a list either, if I hadn't seen any BBC output for 18 years.
Click to expand...

Of course I am aware of BBC TV in the time since I gave it up in my own home. Strangely I have managed to see it elsewhere quite enough to know what it is like and the continuing trend to dumbing down.

Plus in your quote, you manage to misconstrue my reasoning for my statement that I am not going to make a list ... The real reason is that what I think of the output of the BBC TV service is "an opinion." I see no point in debating opinion. That does not mean that my option is not based on facts. And new facts and evidence should cause anyone to consider revising their opinion - myself included.

Best wishes from George
 
I wrote:

"Given that the License system is regressive and actually is a de facto tax on watching any Television, it seems to me that the obvious method of paying for it should be via the general taxation of the nation. This is much less regressive."

Just two pence' worth from George
Jim Audiomisc said:
The snags being:

1) General Taxation puts the Government in day-by-day control of how much the BBC gets. Worse than now. The primary point of the fee is to try and get the Goverment away from the path the money takes. Our big problem is that they've been diverting part of it it, etc, anyway, as well as forcing real-terms cuts.

2) The wealthy routinely dodge tax, so the burden gets shoved down the range anyway. "Tax is for the little people".

So your proposal would be even more regressive in reality until such a magic time as we end the ultra-wealthy dodging tax.
Click to expand...

Dear Jim,

To answer your points in order. Firstly, no doubt that the influence of the government of the day needs to be carefully avoided with a newly appointed Board of BBC Governors that are selected on a cross-party basis with non-political and other cultural representatives in its constitution that can be as independent as our Judiciary for example.

In reality this new BBC Governance Board would need to bring considerably more protection from short term [government of the day] influence over the BBC than the broadcaster currently has, where the License and Charter renewal are real points of weakness for the independence and integrity of the BBC as it is constituted currently.

Secondly, concerning your point about the regressive TV License being less unfair than the Tax regime that would fund it if it was tax take funded rather than via subscription: This is of course a reasonable argument for making the financing of the BBC a subscription model as many TV broadcast media organisations currently use. Of course one should be allowed to subscribe to which ever services one chooses, without de facto having to subscribe to the State Broadcasting Organisation. The subscription to the the BBC would allow a person to view the BBC without subscribing to Sky or any other sender, while subscribing to an independent would allow receiving their output without paying towards the BBC.

To argue that the current tax regime in the UK favours the wealthiest is incontestable. But the reality is that the tax system [except VAT] is graded according to earnings, so that for those earning basic rate tax or below, there is the personal allowance as tax free with a 20% [currently] rate of tax on earnings above the personal allowance.

Thus there are quite few people at the poorest end of the earnings scale who pay little or no income tax, but who are bound to pay the License Fee under the current arrangements. Arguing that Taxation of earnings is more regressive than a flat rate "de facto" tax on watching any TV in the UK does not add up.

If paying for a State organised service via taxation on earnings is not a fairer idea than a flat rate charge, then why is the NHS, Defence, Education services, etc. not paid for by a, "flat rate, License to use," arrangement? I think the answer is simple. It allows that those who are less well off may access, "free at the point of use," the benefit of these services without financial ruin, or the impossibility of the poorest to afford such flat rate charges in the first place. Essentially progressive taxation is a civilised way of allowing the poorer people to retain some dignity in a society aiming for a greater degree of economic equality in life.

I don't normally debate on the internet, but your direct reply to me has meant I have have been bound to reply.

Best wishes from George
 
Last edited:
claire.foxx said:
We dont have a democracy, we have the appearance of democracy whose greatest trick is convincing ppl there’s no alternative.
Click to expand...

It's interesting and quite revealing that you should write that, given that you are an entirely convinced supporter of the EU, which has used exactly that trick - as vividly demonstrated daily on the various never-ending brexit threads - to morph itself from a common market into a centralised technocratic cod-empire of 27 states.
 
claire.foxx said:
...coming from a bootlicker who speaks in terms of sovereignty and nationhood, your motives seem suspect here.

PS, despite the continued existence of an EU the UK is no longer connected to, you still doesn’t have a democracy.
Click to expand...

What is a 'bootlicker', and what is suspect about sovereignty and nationhood?

We actually have a fairly effective democracy, even if it one that isn't going your way at the moment. We all acknowledge that there is room for improvement.

Anyway, none of that explains the conflict between your passionate pro-EU evangelism and your apparent contempt for faux democracy.
 
If you need to understand a term, you can search the internet just you do anything that forms your position on anything and everything. No point doing your legwork.
I don't have contempt for faux democracy, I have contempt for democracy.
 
Apparently there is no British institution that can’t best be discussed by deprecating the EU. Can’t believe those bureaucrats in Brussels ruined our sovereign BBC! :mad::mad::mad:
 
claire.foxx said:
If you need to understand a term, you can search the internet just you do anything that forms your position on anything and everything. No point doing your legwork.
I don't have contempt for faux democracy, I have contempt for democracy.
Click to expand...

I understand the term perfectly well, thank you. I thought you might like to elucidate regarding the context.

Interesting second point. Your line seems fluid, but hey.
 
Whatever Laurence Fox is against, I'm all for!

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/police-investigate-laurence-fox-tweet-ben-hunte-b79401.html

'Police are investigating allegations of racist and homophobic abuse targeted at the BBC’s LGBT correspondent after actor Laurence Fox tweeted about him.

Fox appeared to share a screenshot of the journalist Ben Hunte’s Twitter profile in a post earlier this week next to the message: “So glad I’m not paying for this anymore.”

[...]

Fox later responded to Hunte, saying he is “saddened to hear you have had abuse”.

“It’s horrible and I know exactly how you feel,” he said.

“My view is that the BBC is increasingly identitarian and divisive, and should be defunded.'
 
Rcook said:
In general, people are getting disenchanted with the BBC. Including their staff - the latest big name to leave them is Graham Norton, their highest paid star. It's mainly because of their bias which goes against their charter. They are constantly pushing a left-wing agenda, including nonsensical climate change alarmism, and their pro-EU bias is staggering - apparently the BBC senior management of the time couldn't believe the majority of the proletariat had the temerity (or good sense) to vote to leave. This is illustrated by the audience of Question Time (which never has equal numbers of panelists with opposing views, always a majority in favour of the BBC agenda) falling from 8.3 million on 22 Oct 2009
to 0.7 million on 19 Nov 2020.

Having said that, the BBC has shown some good stuff recently. 'The Repair Shop' is well worth watching, the comedy series 'Ghosts' is excellent and very clever, and their football and snooker coverage is usually worth watching (despite Gary Lineker). Most of the rest I wouldn't bother with, especially the news.
Click to expand...
Must be a different BBC to the one I watch in my Universe!
 
George J said:
I wrote:

"Given that the License system is regressive and actually is a de facto tax on watching any Television, it seems to me that the obvious method of paying for it should be via the general taxation of the nation. This is much less regressive."

Just two pence' worth from George


Dear Jim,

To answer your points in order. Firstly, no doubt that the influence of the government of the day needs to be carefully avoided with a newly appointed Board of BBC Governors that are selected on a cross-party basis with non-political and other cultural representatives in its constitution that can be as independent as our Judiciary for example.

In reality this new BBC Governance Board would need to bring considerably more protection from short term [government of the day] influence over the BBC than the broadcaster currently has, where the License and Charter renewal are real points of weakness for the independence and integrity of the BBC as it is constituted currently.

Secondly, concerning your point about the regressive TV License being less unfair than the Tax regime that would fund it if it was tax take funded rather than via subscription: This is of course a reasonable argument for making the financing of the BBC a subscription model as many TV broadcast media organisations currently use. Of course one should be allowed to subscribe to which ever services one chooses, without de facto having to subscribe to the State Broadcasting Organisation. The subscription to the the BBC would allow a person to view the BBC without subscribing to Sky or any other sender, while subscribing to an independent would allow receiving their output without paying towards the BBC.

To argue that the current tax regime in the UK favours the wealthiest is incontestable. But the reality is that the tax system [except VAT] is graded according to earnings, so that for those earning basic rate tax or below, there is the personal allowance as tax free with a 20% [currently] rate of tax on earnings above the personal allowance.

Thus there are quite few people at the poorest end of the earnings scale who pay little or no income tax, but who are bound to pay the License Fee under the current arrangements. Arguing that Taxation of earnings is more regressive than a flat rate "de facto" tax on watching any TV in the UK does not add up.

If paying for a State organised service via taxation on earnings is not a fairer idea than a flat rate charge, then why is the NHS, Defence, Education services, etc. not paid for by a, "flat rate, License to use," arrangement? I think the answer is simple. It allows that those who are less well off to access, "free at the point of use," the benefit of these services without financial ruin, or the impossibility of the poorest to afford such flat rate charges in the first place. Essentially progressive taxation is a civilised way of allowing the poorer people to retain some dignity in a society aiming for a greater degree of economic equality in life.

I don't normally debate on the internet, but your direct reply to me has meant I have have been bound to reply.

Best wishes from George
Click to expand...

Strange that you have such opinions on the BBC yet haven't had a licence for 18 years!
Personally BBC radio is worth the fee on its own.
 
slavedata said:
Anyone see the home made radio and amp on the Repair Shop? Had switchable turn points on the tone controls and looked like EL86 output valves. I'm sure someone on here can quote what wireless world design the amp was.
Click to expand...

I was interested to know which drive units had been used in the speakers.
We’re never going to find out...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top