Philosophy Now Forum

That was the plan.. until they vetoed that one too.

The Beeb seem to like our money direct from our pockets and purses.

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/ ... icence-fee

I guess they worry that if it comes from direct tax it'll be very susceptible to govt control but agree that it should be done this way if we still want to have the Beeb as making it a criminal act is wrong and to old a model for the times. Personally I pay it as it's a small amount for what it is given what the commercials charge annually and worth it just to have a couple of channels without bloody adverts but I do get irritated that many can watch it without paying via the iplayer. I also agree that their news and journo standards have slipped quite badly lately. I see on your petition link that some don't know that the terrestrial commercial channels also get a slice.

Arising_uk wrote:We should just pay for the Beeb out of direct taxation.

Again, the only proper tax is a single tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value. Furthermore, the government should not own, operate, support or promote anything.

Actually you have to have pay for a license if you own anything on which you can watch BBC television programmes, which includes devices that stream channels. Computers, iPads, even smart phones, technically. So you don't even need to own a TV.

"You need to be covered by a TV Licence to watch or record live TV programmes on any channel, download or watch any BBC programmes on iPlayer – live, catch up or on demand.

This applies to any provider you use and any device, including a TV, desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder."

-as quoted from tvlicensing.co.uk

God wrote:Actually you have to have pay for a license if you own anything on which you can watch BBC television programmes, which includes devices that stream channels. Computers, iPads, even smart phones, technically. So you don't even need to own a TV.

"You need to be covered by a TV Licence to watch or record live TV programmes on any channel, download or watch any BBC programmes on iPlayer – live, catch up or on demand.

This applies to any provider you use and any device, including a TV, desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder."

-as quoted from tvlicensing.co.uk

No way! I didn't know they were covering all bases, but where money is concerned the government are always quick with reform, but where reform benefits society then not so quick at all.

bobevenson wrote:I hope the USA never catches up with the tyranny of England and the BBC!

You area way ahead with the tyranny of Trump, who has legalised corruption in oil deals; insulted world leaders; and says whatever shit next comes into his head.

bobevenson wrote:I hope the USA never catches up with the tyranny of England and the BBC!

I think you'll find England lost its ability to tyrannise once it decided to dismantle it's empire.

I'm not sure which century you are writing in, or from.... but, these days, England Is rarely referred to as a single entity, when it comes to its nation state... and the BBC, is public broadcaster to the United Kingdom, rather than just an English concern.

The U.K. now lives in the comet blaze of American tyranny. The WORLD lives in the comet blaze of American tyranny. America has shown time and time again that it can pretty much do whatever it wants without impunity. If a dog is "man's best friend", then the U.K. Is on an American leash... More a poodle, than a rottweiler. No teeth. So the tyranny is rather limited, even by association with the United States.

... and the BBC's accountability is passed through greater checks than its commercial broadcast counterparts. It has to answer to each act of stupidity, and f**k up, it allows to happen. Directors have been removed or had the grace to resign when the BBC has been found wanting, which is more than America can lay claim to right now.

The U.K. and the BBC can be accused of many things but "tyranny" is not one of them.

Oh, please, really?!! Now you leave me not just questioning which century you are writing from Mr Evenson (Mr Bobevenson?) but what age you are?

Have you actually yet moved beyond pre-school to be taught some actual history? The Americans have been terrorising the world since Commodore Perry set sail for Japan, in the 19th century! Some could argue even earlier than that.

On a side note, may I ask why you use the big bold print when posting? Do you have issues with your vision? Or do you just like shouting in print because people are beginning not to listen to you? Apologies for suggesting print-shouting, if it is your vision. I can print likewise, if that's another problem you suffer from, just so that you get a fair shot at understanding what I might be saying.

ForCruxSake wrote:Oh, please, really?!! Now you leave me not just questioning which century you are writing from Mr Evenson (Mr Bobevenson?) but what age you are?

Have you actually yet moved beyond pre-school to be taught some actual history? The Americans have been terrorising the world since Commodore Perry set sail for Japan, in the 19th century! Some could argue even earlier than that.

On a side note, may I ask why you use the big bold print when posting? Do you have issues with your vision? Or do you just like shouting in print because people are beginning not to listen to you? Apologies for suggesting print-shouting, if it is your vision. I can print likewise, if that's another problem you suffer from, just so that you get a fair shot at understanding what I might be saying.

Welcome to the Forum. And please meet our local village idiot.
For your own piece of mind you might have to ignore him.
... And no I don't think he knows any history despite being over 80 and living alone he does not seem to spend any time in the pursuit of knowledge.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Welcome to the Forum. And please meet our local village idiot.
For your own piece of mind you might have to ignore him.

Thank you for the warm welcome and the thoughtful warning. I have to say, though, even the village idiot deserves to be part of the community. To ignore him is cruel... exclusive... Let's make him wear a hat with bells on and dance his carefree jig round the village. We may be laughing at him but he's still one of our own. One day he'll fall into the local pond and drown, all of his own accord, and we shall miss the loony tunes that made him jig and totter about the village, despite how relieved we all are.

bobevenson wrote:Is paying a government fee to watch TV tyranny or not?

The fee goes to the BBC, not the government. No fee, no BBC.

bobevenson wrote:Is paying a government fee to watch TV tyranny or not?

What would make the BBC TV licence fee tyrannical?

Is it oppressive?
No

Is it cruel?
No

Is it despotic?
No

Is it an unreasonable or arbitrary tax?
Yes, but then so are many taxes.

It it an unreasonably harsh tax?
Not really. Brits tend to riot against harsh taxes.

Does the fee contribute to something that benefits the viewer?
Yes: no advertisements, or constant breaks, as your programme gets exciting. It used to contribute to quality programming but that's been lost to the commercial cost of programme making and the fact the BBC budget can only extend to farming out projects to those that price themselves competitively, and comparatively, cheaply.

This has all been said before, hasn't it? If so, I apologise for the repetition.

So in answer to your question, I would say in this case, overwhelmingly, that the BBC TV licence fee is NOT a tyranny. It's a bit of a pain but then so is the council tax.

Does this signal an end to the rattling of your sabre?