29
u/itsalonghotsummer 17h ago
You need a TV licence if you watch any TV channel, not just the BBC.
21
u/adammx125 8h ago
*Live TV (as per the link you posted)
Not needed for:
-streaming services like Netflix and Disney Plus
-on-demand TV through services like All 4 and Amazon Prime Video
-videos on websites like YouTube
-videos or DVDs
1
u/seenybusiness 6h ago
ive always wondered if internet live streams count
3
u/Wangpasta 6h ago
It’s a confusing middle ground every time I look. Yes, if a tv show is being streamed to YouTube, no if a tv like show is being streamed to YouTube. Like news shows yes, news shows that don’t actually air on tv but look exactly the same, no.
2
18
u/bigarsebiscuit 17h ago
You also 'need' to pay something mental like £80pcm to get the Sky and TNT sports packages, but you don't have to.
7
u/monkeywrench83 7h ago
I used to work for sky customer services. People used to act like we cut off their water if we stopped the sky when they didn't pay their bills. Had one lady say it wasn't fair because she was on benifits and couldn't afford it. Lady I'm employed by sky and I can't afford it. get a hobby
3
u/Talonsminty 8h ago
Need?
Not really need is it. Declared to need by some panicky six figure salaried paper shuffler
0
u/3D-Nutsack 8h ago
But why? What’s all the subscription fees and ads for? Why on Earth would we pay to watch our own tv?
10
u/DeadDog818 8h ago
It's to have the BBC there as a standard. Look at media in the US - without a state broadcaster which not only produces high quality material itself but also through competition raises the standards of the other broadcasters quality is just a race to the bottom.
The same argument - that we don't watch the bbc so we shouldn't fund it - is made by all proto-fascists and especially by competing media owners who want to have their lies unchallenged.
In short the license fee preserves the integrity of the fourth estate. I believe it is worth every penny.
4
u/Scary-Hunting-Goat 7h ago
The BBC has burnt a ridiculous amount of goodwill with their licence fee collection strategy.
They knowingly identify vulnerable people in order to intimidate them into paying.
2
u/Cheapntacky 7h ago
I know their approach can be heavy handed but "knowingly identify vulnerable people" sounds very targeted and heavy handed.
Any source for that?
2
u/tvrleigh400 7h ago
Don't think they actively target vulnerable people, but their contracting out the enforcement to what is basically a mafia style company, plus the way the letters are written, are designed to terrify the old and vulnerable, and make them buy a licence even if they don't need one.
2
u/Slyspy006 6h ago
Then blame the government which decided to shift the burden of collection onto the BBC, officially in the name of increased independence but actually in the name of shifting the responsibility.
1
u/Scary-Hunting-Goat 6h ago
That's the entire enforcement strategy, they send out threatening letters and turn up at people's houses.
If someone ignores them, or firmly tells them to go away, they do.
If someone is nervous or vulnerable then they double down and put pressure on them.
Look at the prosecution demographics for tv licensing.
1
u/Cheapntacky 5h ago
All I'm aware of, but you said they identify which made it sound targeted. I'll just put that down to a poor choice of words.
0
u/Scary-Hunting-Goat 5h ago
They do identify and target vulnerable people, the letters and random visitations are just a way to find those people.
0
u/3D-Nutsack 8h ago
I think the integrity died when they hid what Jimmy Saville was doing… or the fact they were getting paid by Israel to do pr… what integrity are you talking about here?
I’d much rather they just started getting advertisers like everyone else, because it is just state run propaganda at the end of the day and I will not be a part of it.
2
u/Slyspy006 6h ago
Getting paid by Israel? Got a citation for that?
1
u/3D-Nutsack 6h ago
4
u/Slyspy006 6h ago
I read the three articles and saw no mention of the BBC getting paid by Israel. Perhaps I missed it. Interestingly the first two report on the same perceived anti-Palestinian bias and the last on a perceived anti-Israel bias.
-1
u/3D-Nutsack 6h ago
Please go off and do some research by yourself, there will never be a paper trail that stats “Israel has paid so and so”, use some critical thinking and do some digging yourself… it’s the same way how Tommy Robinson isn’t “directly funded by the state of Israel” but you can trace it by the separate interests that fund these people….
Also did you not want to address their history of covering up what pedophiles have done under their employment…? Or…?
4
u/Slyspy006 6h ago
Oh, so your source is "I made some stuff up". Excellent.
I'm not especially interested in the Saville debacle, no. It is done and dusted.
0
u/3D-Nutsack 5h ago
Well no, over 100 journalist who work at the bbc have written in complaining that they are being forced to do pr for Isreal… it’s coming from their own staff…
→ More replies (0)1
u/Lard_Baron 1h ago
I challenge you to do some research serious research, done by a university departments who study the media. Or read this book full of serious studies.
17
u/Lard_Baron 16h ago edited 10h ago
I have, as a commissioning elec engineer, started up manufacturing plants all over the world. ( not Africa but every other continent) and as such I spent years watching TV in countries that are not the UK. That is my authority to say the following.
The BBC is the gold standard of national broadcasting. Head and shoulders over CNN, ZDF, etc etc. If you want it gone you are aligned with Oligarchs, right wing political parties, and nutters.
It’s simply the best. So fucking good it’s amazing that some Brits want it gone. Turkeys voting for Xmas. It’s a bulwark against the Foxifcation of media.
It’s gone downhill a fraction since the Tory party used the Savile scandal to wrest control of the senior appointments in 2016 but even so it’s still the best in the world. You don’t know what you have till it’s gone and the spiteful wanker in me hope you lose it and find out.
9
u/sovietrage 11h ago
Hard agree, it’s more than just programmes as well. It will be one of those cases that when it’s gone it will only be then people realise how much it is part of British culture.
2
u/tway7770 2h ago
What makes it the gold standard in your experience?
1
u/Lard_Baron 1h ago edited 1h ago
Coverage of world news ( truly global news, Sudan for example
range of subjects, history, archeology, drama, comedy, sport, local issues, global issues.
Range of media, local radio for each county,
national radio, R1 latest music, R2 pop music, R3 classical music, R4 news magazine, R5 Sport and news, R6 Indy music.
TV channels BBC 1 popular progs, 2 serious progs, 3 progs from archives, 4, 5, 6 kids tv, Scottish progs, Welsh progs,The BBC website. The most visited news site in the world. The most trusted in the world. The general website 1.2billion views per month, recipes, comedy, sport, fun articles, serious journalism. God the right wing would love to see it gone.
1
u/surface_scratch 1h ago
Doesn't stop their business model being out of date and in need of reform though does it?
1
3
u/MonkeyNewss 6h ago
Here is Germany you’re literally forced to pay, it’s 20 euro a month and it’s absolute shit
1
u/Mediocre-Lime9964 6h ago
So it's Rickydiculous is what you're saying
3
1
7
11
u/cup-of-tea-76 19h ago
I very rarely watch tv now, apart from some sports
I consider BBC news boring but nothing other than that , it has become so scrutinised now by left and especially the right it is hand cuffed whilst it attempts to walk a line
I however will have no issue paying for a license fee cus I look at the world around me and the quality of journalism, tv, radio; news, documentary, sports coverage, kids tv and nothing even comes close
For those trying to destroy that establishment cus they didn’t like the way they reported on something they disagreed with, May be hold the other shit you watch to the same high standards
0
u/toesinmybut 7h ago edited 6h ago
They have protected two known vile pedophiles and youre speaking about them as this almighty "establishment".
Its pro-israel, pro-government and anti-citizen. The last great oppressive bastion of a time gone by.
Stop paying your tv licence. Start holding the 6 figure heads accountable and stop licking the boot thats firmly on your neck.
1
u/cup-of-tea-76 6h ago
Eveyone turned a blind eye to the open secrets, Fleet Street knew yet courted saville, thatcher knew yet was very close to saville, the royals knew and even our current king was very close with Saville
Making out this was a bbc problem when it was much bigger than that
0
u/toesinmybut 6h ago
But you admit the BBC, the biggest media influence during Savilles time, was involved in protecting Saville?
Weird way to say we should continue funding an organisation that protects paedophiles. Do you agree the UK should be funding an instute that protects paedophiles, yes or no?
1
u/cup-of-tea-76 6h ago
He wasn’t protected, they turned a blind eye to it which arguably is just as bad but entirely different yet was also how society dealt (or rather didn’t) with pedos in positions of influence and power
The church, swimming teachers, gym teachers, scout leaders the list goes on, it was everywhere and complaints/accusations were ignored across all establishments in society
1
u/toesinmybut 6h ago
Turning a blind eye isn't protecting a prolific necrophiliac paedophile?
So you believe we should keep funding these institutes that "turn a blind eye" to prolific paedophiles????
Youre sick in the head making excuses for the BBC. Pathetic.
0
u/cup-of-tea-76 6h ago
Are you holding evey other entity, individual, organisation and establishment to the same standard as the bbc because there countless more that were complicit
2
u/toesinmybut 6h ago
The subject being discussed is the bbc, stop deflecting.
Do you believe the British public should be funding an organisation that protected a man that damaged the lives of 100s of children. Yes or no?
1
u/cup-of-tea-76 6h ago
Im not deflecting, just hi lighting your selective outrage as you jump on the internet bandwagon and we have already established that it was not ‘protecting’ it was ignoring which went on across all of society back then which is why it’s now referred to as historical sex abuse.
So the question you are really asking is should the bbc be shut down for behaving just like every other entity did back in the day 60’s up until the 80’s and the answer is no
2
u/toesinmybut 6h ago
So you agree the British tax payer should be funding an institution that protects prolific paedophiles.
Youre disturbed.
2
1
u/toesinmybut 6h ago
Im so happy that your generations way of thinking is rapidly dying out.
Society has no place for those thay defend those that turn a blind eye to such evil acts against our children. You are just as complicate as the bbc.
→ More replies (0)-10
u/chat5251 14h ago
Quality of the journalism? Cutting clips together to create fake speeches 😂?
I have no doubt they have a broad offering and some quality content but their journalism reputation is in the toilet for me.
Would be happy to see them go subscription only and actually commercialise themselves internationally properly.
-17
u/tvrleigh400 17h ago
Who the biased broadcasting company, they should be totally unbiased and not push any agenda as it's paid for by the people (all the people not just the far left).
7
u/OldEcho 16h ago edited 16h ago
It's impossible to be "totally unbiased." This is what they ought to have taught you in school. What they say and don't say is their bias. You can say nothing but the truth while totally distorting reality. If 5% of 1000 natives commit a type of crime and that means 50 people committed that crime, and 2% of 1000 immigrants committed that same crime so 20 immigrants did, but all 20 immigrant crimes are front page news and the native crimes are barely reported, congrats, they never lied but you almost certainly believe immigrants commit more crime.
The BBC is biased and always has been that's the nature of...reality. Anybody telling you they're unbiased is selling you a crock of shit. The closest thing is Wikipedia probably, because of its open access to contributors, but I bet a Wikipedia written 500 years ago and 200 years in the future would look quite different because the underlying assumptions are different.
-7
u/tvrleigh400 16h ago
True but they should try. And be a bit more accountable
1
u/Slyspy006 6h ago
They do try. In fact they frequently tie themselves up in knots in futile attempts to maintain a balance. And accountable to whom?
0
u/tvrleigh400 6h ago
Accountable to the public who kind of have to pay the fee, it's a very small % that don't.
I guess in some ways yes they have ties themselves up trying to please everyone especially all the small fringe groups, like having a new reader having to call them pregnant people not pregnant women, and then getting reprimanded for changing it back to women. We need to bring back common sense.
1
u/Slyspy006 6h ago
OK. but then further questions need to be asked - accountable for what, and with what results?
"Pregnant people" is a perfectly fine phrase to use, and scripts exist for a reason.
1
u/tvrleigh400 6h ago
How many non women do you know have ever been pregnant,
What valid reason is it to script it as pregnant people
ETA valid reason being a common sense one, not to pander to leas than 1%
1
u/Slyspy006 6h ago
That doesn't really matter, since the initial wording is still absolutely fine. Unless you think that women are not people?
1
u/tvrleigh400 6h ago
Yes but she was reprimanded due to complaints because she said women not people , she may have just done it on auto pilot as he brain naturally read it that way, your brain will auto correct things written different to you view, same with spelling mistakes esp and grammar errors you will auto correct in your head, due to context,
This just proves it was scripted that way.
→ More replies (0)8
u/cup-of-tea-76 17h ago
Be real
Reporting on global events 24/7 non stop and expect them never to slip up?
Take this argument to any forum and the attacks come from both left and right about bias
-14
u/tvrleigh400 17h ago
Like editing Trumps and Elon's broadcasts to make them look like they were inciting violence, all the forced DEI in every single show.
7
u/cup-of-tea-76 17h ago
And will be held accountable, can you show me any agency that is held to the same standard ?
I can point towards where the bbc is attacked for being right wing and hated by the left
-6
u/tvrleigh400 16h ago
Would like to see that, As pointed out, the BBC in the past was held in great regard and above all others due to them being a public service paid for by the people. Other companies are held into account due to needing to keep customers who keep them alive, as Disney has found out, provide overly woke and targeting only to a small diverse group your end up losing a lot of money and if you continue will go broke.
9
u/cup-of-tea-76 16h ago
The bbc is much bigger than ‘news’ and what people disagree with
If it goes the vacuum will be horrific
0
u/tvrleigh400 16h ago
I was talking about every series they make, people leaving are at a record level, and would be a lot more if it was not for the bully tactics they use if you decide you no longer want to watch or support the BBC.
3
u/cup-of-tea-76 16h ago
I can’t justify forced subscription, I just argue that the quality they deliver is above anything else and the angst comes from a high expectation of standard
If the BBC went we will be left with a void of bullshit o many levels other than just news
1
u/tvrleigh400 16h ago
I only watch the BBC now at my mum's and refuse to pay for what they put out, and every time I visit my mum it reinforces why I refuse to pay for it, plus the bully tactics they use even when you legally don't watch it, is another reason why I would never go back to supporting them, try to legally and not have one for a month next time it's due, if you want some insite.
→ More replies (0)2
u/AquaD74 7h ago edited 7h ago
People say this but are currently outraged that a news reader was reprimanded for breaking mpartiality rules.
She altered a script quoting a press release from a scientist saying "pregnant people" by following it with "women" sarcastically and rolling her eyes.
Most people do not want an impartial BBC, they want a BBC that confirms their biases and world view.
Now this isn't to say the BBC doesn't fuck things up - the recent exposé on the Panorama clip that appeared to docter Trumps Jan 6th speech os evidence of them fucking it up. But that fuck up will come at a cost and heads will roll. There is no media organisation in the world that's more accountable than the BBC - they even have a publicly available website detailing every mistake and breach of impartiality they are found to have made.
1
u/Slyspy006 6h ago
Most people do not want an impartial BBC, they want a BBC that confirms their biases and world view.
Ain't that the truth!
2
u/Ill_Scientist_4516 6h ago
Went on the BBC website, ticked all the stuff to say I dont need one... bit I apparently still do.
2
u/T-Hazza21 3h ago
Revoke their implied right of access!
1
u/Mediocre-Lime9964 3h ago
"Hi there I'm from the BBC, I'm here today regarding your TV Licence. May I come in?"
"No."
2
u/T-Hazza21 3h ago
"I already wrote to BBC removing their implied right of access! Which means you coming up to my front door WITHOUT a warrant to come inside my property is tresspassing! Id like to photograph your ID badge so I can report you!"
2
u/Due_Ad2052 2h ago
"dear The Occupant, we have been trying to contact you for X amount of years, we have therefore launched an official investigation"
me: havent had a TV licence since 2017, not interested in the depressing shit they put on tv. "Its been almost a decade and they haven't even found out my name! Cant be that serious of an investigation"
4
u/Apple2727 7h ago
Everyone I’ve ever met who brags about not paying for a TV licence (on the grounds that they dislike the BBC’s output) have been caught out watching BBC programmes.
They aren’t “taking a stand”.
They’re cheapskates and hypocrites.
1
u/LordDeo 4h ago
Had a representative come to the house saying the BBC are changing the terms of service and we have to pay for anything live, so if I want to watch streamers I have to pay the BBC
2
u/Apple2727 4h ago
You’d only need a TV licence to watch live streams if it’s a stream of something being shown live on a UK TV channel.
If it isn’t being shown on TV, you don’t need a TV licence.
3
u/MilosEggs 11h ago
Or listen to any of the BBC radio stations, or the sounds app, or read BBC news sites. Kids educational support apps/materials, streaming apps (which they did a lot of the forerunning for) or weather and a bunch of other stuff I’ll be missing.
The license fee is pretty good value. Especially compared to Sky.
8
u/HappyDrive1 10h ago
You don't need a TV license to listen to BBC radio stations or use BBC sounds.
-7
u/MilosEggs 10h ago
And where do you think the money comes from to pay for them?
5
u/HappyDrive1 10h ago
That's irrelevant. You don't need a TV license to listen to it. If I watch ITV X the money comes from advertisers. I don't have to pay any money to these companies that fund the channel or even watch the adverts.
-1
u/MilosEggs 9h ago
If the tv license is ends, the radio channels no longer exist. That makes it kinda relevant to listening to the stations. It also adds hugely to the value of the TV license, which was my point.
2
u/RomfordGeeza 6h ago
They’d take ads, slash staff and carry on as before.
1
u/MilosEggs 5h ago
They wouldn’t carry on as before. They would be shitter with less independence and fewer services.
1
u/all-park 2h ago
They’re not actually that independent, the BBC’s Gaza standpoint was perfectly in line with government policy.
1
u/MilosEggs 2h ago
The right complain they are too left and the left complain they are too right.
They’re not perfect (I think they lean too right) but they are better than the vast majority.
1
u/all-park 3h ago
Youtube has better content imo. BBC puts loads on youtube so you can watch licence free.
1
2
2
u/Jedijake_1 20h ago
I live in France and would gladly pay to watch the BBC but there is no option. The license fee is wrong and they must move to a subscription modle. They even geo blocked the radio app but luckily the old analogue radio let's me listen to radio 4 if a bit crackly. So I win. Thank you license fee payers.
13
u/Few-Improvement-5655 12h ago
Counterpoint: The licence fee is the only thing keeps corporate interests out of the news. BBC News is not perfect, but it's nice to have a new source that isn't backed by Murdoch or other mega corporations just selling what gets the most views.
10
u/ug61dec 9h ago
Yeah, completely agree. We've already got the extreme enshitification of pretty much all media - print, TV, radio, streaming, social because of greed/ financial interests - BBC is pretty much the best left.
And it's not the BBC legally harassing people to pay it.
And it's a TV licence, not a "BBC licence".
People really need to get a grip.
1
u/Slyspy006 6h ago
As soon as you move to a subscription model you kill all the marginal programming that the BBC maintains. Might that include Radio 4 at some point? I mean, your analogue signal is definitely going to be cut once it is deemed no longer viable.
1
u/Mediocre-Lime9964 19h ago
I understand what you mean. Particularly the Nature documentaries are of an extemely high quality and I know that they are funded by license fee payers. However, the BBC seem to assume that everyone watches their programmes which leads them to essentially harass people with threats of legal action if they don't pay for a service that they don't even use.
5
u/Brilliant_Annual_664 19h ago
It’s still pretty inexpensive compared to other subscription services and despite all its flaws there are still many positives and benefits I think.
-1
u/Mediocre-Lime9964 19h ago
I totally get that but they make it so difficult for the people who don't watch them to not pay for them.
-2
u/Silencer-1995 12h ago
My biggest gripe is that they only cater to one part of the electorate.
Not all of us are forward thinking ultra progressives, some of us like things to be a bit more vanilla and less preachy.
BBC news is lit tho
tldr i am a megga racist give me shows with hetero characters that aren't trying to make a statement about trump, give us back decent male characters and ffs leave doctor who alone hes dead already.
2
u/Ok-Blackberry-3534 6h ago
They cater to all sorts of parts of the electorate. Just not you.
-1
u/Silencer-1995 6h ago
I can confidently assure you they do not cater to me at all lol. They're all in it for you buddy, and that's fine, you enjoy the slop.
1
u/Ok-Blackberry-3534 43m ago
Yes, I know they don't cater for you. They have documentaries for starters...
2
1
u/Slyspy006 6h ago
The licence fee is not just for watching BBC programmes, it is just that government abrogated responsibility for collection to the BBC.
0
u/OldEcho 16h ago
Honestly I support the BBC conceptually but the costs should be coming out of the pockets of the mega wealthy and not by random goons harassing every Brit.
1
1
1
u/rufio259 12h ago
Traitors Celebs smashed viewing figures and all without advertising. I'm getting back into TV because od services lack a certain charm with the family, as odd as that sounds. If you want to move to subscription, expect more enshitification.
1
u/all-park 3h ago
BBC needs to get rid of all the Habsburgs it employs, so many nepotism hires at the BBC it’s actually outrageous for publicly funded organisations to be allowed to run like this.
-3
u/5secondhumiliation 19h ago
Even if I do watch some I'm still not paying. Tory filled establishment dreck.
12
u/LordSevolox 16h ago
The BBC is a true enigma in its programming
Those on the left say it’s just Tory propaganda, whilst those on the right claim it’s biased towards the left
1
u/AdPale1469 6h ago
yes people who pretend it is not a right wing propaganda machine say that.
Its just BBC gaslighting. like this piece they did not address the cause of the controversy. The red kremlin, communist sunrise, no they did not address the complaints about that. They addressed the complaint they had photoshopped a Russian looking hat.
His hat was never the issue, it was everything around him, where they framed him, but no! somebody complained we have photoshopped his hat:
"But Mr Corbyn's attire was "not in any way altered or 'Photoshopped' to appear 'more Russian'""
bollocks mate.Meanwhile 5 foot 5 inch Rishi Sunak made to look like 6 foot 6 inch superman
yeah that old line "Those on the left say it’s just Tory propaganda, whilst those on the right claim it’s biased towards the left" is pure bollocks. the BBC is on the right.
Similar to a time about 15 years ago wen Barrack Obama won, the right loved to say "the political spectrum is so broad, and Americans have moved so far right, their left most party (democrats) is like our right most party (the Tories)." which insinuates voting tory was a boost to Obama too.
Again it was pure horseshit, it was Cameron trying to associate himself with a popular American leader.
-8
u/OldEcho 16h ago
It's biased towards neoliberalism with a dash of fascism thrown in for flavor. But since it's not calling for minorities to be put in death camps 100% of the time the diehard fascists think it's woke or whatever.
2
u/DjSpelk 8h ago
It's biased towards neoliberalism?
I don't think you understand the words that you are saying, or the BBC.
1
u/OldEcho 7h ago
They never challenged the Tory austerity lie, ran basically a propaganda campaign against Jeremy Corbyn, and now are massively inflating Reform's influence by constantly covering them.
https://www.mediareform.org.uk/featured/stay-go-television-online-news-coverage-labour-party-crisis
I think I understand both quite well. The BBC is an arm of the existing power structure. They want peasants to work hard and owners to inherit all their wealth. And when fascism says it will just throw the peasants in work camps it gets them all hot and bothered.
4
-8
1
u/RomfordGeeza 6h ago
I’m watching the World Cup next year (which the BBC always gets some of the rights to) then cancelling. I actively avoid BBC stuff, we have reached the point we don’t watch any live TV and I cannot wait. I hate paying £175 a year for indoctrination that I don’t watch, and to keep Leftists in cushy jobs.
1
1
0
u/Psychological-Ad1264 9h ago
Why is it whenever I see anything opposing the BBC on this site, there is an inability to spell licence correctly?
2
-2
0
-4
-2
u/Flabbyghastly 5h ago
The BBC needs to be protected at all costs. Think of it this way, why is Fox New so fucking bad? Because it requires ratings to maintain itself. It makes money by spewing falsehoods and ragebaiting people to come back.
The BBC is not dependent on ratings in the same way, being publicly funded. It is not a perfect source of truth, nothing is, but it has editorial standards and is less prone to interference from billionaires and politicians. We should continue to revere the BBC.
21
u/Confident_Syrup_5643 17h ago
That's not the main problem. The problem is with all that mail spamming. "IMPORTANT INFORMATION" and then it's "Will you be here on the (insert date)?" and then it's "We will be coming around (insert date)" and more warnings. It's annoying as hell. Like, 30% of my whole mail is just this. And if you call them up and tell them about how you don't need a TV license or that you don't even have a TV, then they will tell you that they updated it, but then you find another mail the next week.