Quote: Cheesehoven @ December 27 2010, 11:34 PM GMTThe idea that the entire population should be compulsorily taxed in order to be given what an elite decides to give them is extraordinary.
I guess you're not a fan of the NHS or state education either then?
Quote: Aaron @ December 27 2010, 11:47 PM GMTI guess you're not a fan of the NHS or state education either then?
Not exactly the same thing, is it Aaron?
Quote: Aaron @ December 27 2010, 11:47 PM GMTI guess you're not a fan of the NHS or state education either then?
I'd abolish state education tomorrow and re-introduce hanging for the theft of anything worth more than five bob.
That'd sort the buggers out.
It amuses me when asked why we should have a TV tax, people having scratched their heads to unsuccessfully think of anything they've seen on the BBC worth watching, invariably blurt out first of all as an example of excellence Radio 4, a channel most people have never heard but assume it must be good because Stephen Fry said it was.
These same people, in my experience, can easily think of a large number of quality American shows, while at the same time decrying commercial TV and admiring the BBC.
There are a lot (a LOT) of things you can say about chip, but that he doesn't listen to Radio 4 isn't one of them...
Quote: Cheesehoven @ December 27 2010, 11:57 PM GMTIt amuses me when asked why we should have a TV tax, people having scratched their heads to unsuccessfully think of anything they've seen on the BBC worth watching, invariably blurt out first of all as an example of excellence Radio 4, a channel most people have never heard but assume it must be good because Stephen Fry said it was.
Yes, that's pretty much exactly why I like Radio 4.
Quote: Cheesehoven @ December 27 2010, 11:57 PM GMTIt amuses me when asked why we should have a TV tax, people having scratched their heads to unsuccessfully think of anything they've seen on the BBC worth watching, invariably blurt out first of all as an example of excellence Radio 4, a channel most people have never heard but assume it must be good because Stephen Fry said it was.
These same people, in my experience, can easily think of a large number of quality American shows, while at the same time decrying commercial TV and admiring the BBC.
Doesn't the licence fee span all different areas? As the BBC isn't just about broadcasting. It spreads to other channels such as ITV and Channel 4 too. I don't think we pay the fee to watch EastEnders, Bargain Hunt and QI.
Quote: Cheesehoven @ December 27 2010, 11:52 PM GMTNot exactly the same thing, is it Aaron?
Well ... yes. If you consider the Licence Fee to be a tax, then it is. Whether you use health services or not, you're still paying for them. Whether you have children of school age or not, and if so who are attending state-funded schools, you're still paying for them.
Quote: zooo @ December 28 2010, 12:00 AM GMTThere are a lot (a LOT) of things you can say about chip
*has lawyers on standby*
Quote: Cheesehoven @ December 27 2010, 11:57 PM GMTIt amuses me when asked why we should have a TV tax, people having scratched their heads to unsuccessfully think of anything they've seen on the BBC worth watching,
Do you just generally ask idiots then?
Quote: Aaron @ December 28 2010, 12:08 AM GMTWell ... yes. If you consider the Licence Fee to be a tax, then it is. Whether you use health services or not, you're still paying for them. Whether you have children of school age or not, and if so who are attending state-funded schools, you're still paying for them.
I don't see how comparing basic services to a form of entertainment applies really. We pay for a lot of things via tax such as the police and the army. And libraries. The case for publicly funded libraries would be weak if there was a commercial library next door providing the same service.
The idea that the BBC is still providing a service which cannot be provided by commercial broadcasters has for a long time been a tenuous one, especially since we can see with our own eyes the most innovative and iconic television has come across from America, a system almost entirely commercial (with a tiny psb service).
Some of the best programmes have come via HBO a subscription channel which is why I favour subscription for the BBC. Not only is it more fair (those who do not like the BBC should not be required to fund it) but it also seems to result in better programmes because the makers and producers really have to respond to their audience rather than vanity projects and attempts to second guess its audience with dark and edgy material.
Good idea.
Well, I'm happy to pay the licence fee. It gives me a few channels free from adverts and - whatever others may say - with generally a higher quality of programming than commercial competitors. Even looking at the bottom end of the market, say Strictly Come Dancing and The X Factor, the BBC's is by far the better of the two turds.
Quote: Veronica Vestibule @ December 27 2010, 8:01 PM GMTIf Heaven means accompanying SC and RB on an eternal trip around ethereal versions of the world's good restaurants and watching them do that same old shtick, I'll be down to confession first thing tomorrow morning renouncing the Devil and all his works.
I'm not sure any TV prog is truly 'worth the licence fee on its own' but The Trip comes very close.
Very close indeed.
I liked The Trip to an extent but I get the feeling that if Coogan and Brydon just stared at eachother across a table for twenty-nine minutes while eating fois gras, with the obligatory Michael Caine impression thrown in of course, then people would still declare it as a work of art. It really isn't. It's two gifted comedians having a light-hearted pop at eachother. Nowhere near the work of genius it's proclaimed to be.
I'd be interested to know if a British HBO is financially viable. Britain is a fraction the size of the USA, so any subscription only channel here would bring in significantly less revenues. Would they be enough to make quality comedy and drama, both massively expensive?