Conservative Government on Mission to destroy the BBC

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
1,374
Then you've missed the fact that BBC Three has existed in a streaming-only mode for approaching six years with only a small portion of its output making its way to terrestrial broadcast.
That's not content going straight to other platforms. All the BBC Three content is available for no extra charge to licence fee payers on iPlayer. Given the demographic BBC Three is aimed at I'd be surprised if many of their shows were being watched more live through broadcast compared to catchup.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
4,227
Location
Scotland & London
But that's not 'other platforms' though is it, really. It's going to iPlayer. And it was a highly contentious decision at the time given that BBC Three had much higher viewership than BBC Four

If you have an older 'dumb' tv and you purely rely on terrestrial Freeview broadcast for your TV content then iPlayer may well be from Mars.

Given the demographic BBC Three is aimed at I'd be surprised if many of their shows were being watched more live through broadcast compared to catchup.

Fair point re. BBC Three in particular, a Venn intersection of those watching it with those relying on an old tv to watch anything is microscopic.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
26,262
Location
Scotland
Fair point re. BBC Three in particular, a Venn intersection of those watching it with those relying on an old tv to watch anything is microscopic.
That was the argument given at the time - that the target demo was less likely to view linear TV - but even taking that into consideration, on a cost-per-viewer basis BBC Four was still significantly more expensive to run.
 

SteveP29

Member
Joined
23 Apr 2011
Messages
898
Location
Chester le Street/ Edinburgh
BBC deserve to be thrown under the bus.
I want them scrapped in every way.
Their purpose is not to waste money on junk shows, high paid staff, and threatening people for what is effectively extortion money.
BBC advertise on many channels in the UK nations every day, they put their reruns such as Emmerdale on W, and other shows on Gold, Dave, etc etc.
They advertise and sell their shows overseas.
The BBC may claim to rely on the tax that is the licence fee, but in reality they have a separate corporate arm that is run for profit of people's backs.
I stopped watching live TV a year and 4 months ago, cheaper to watch DVDs of shows I actually like. When I was watching TV before, BBC's schedule of Pointless, Doctors, Bargain Hunt, News with reminders every minute, and property shows, wasn't my cup of tea, so we didn't even watch the channels by the company we were forced to pay.
If their must be a licence fee, it ought to be shared out equally to all channels on views per hour, in my case the Horror and SyFy channels would get money instead. If BBC want the money, they would finally have to put something good on!

I take it you've not watched ITV recently then?

Newsflash, there are millions who DO watch the BBC and their channels, I'd hazard a guess that every BBC channel has more viewers/ listeners than either SyFy or Horror channel.
You can't get SyFy or Horror without purchasing access to a package which gives you other channels that you might not be interested in, so, is that not the same as paying for a TV Licence?
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
15,191
Location
No longer here
You can't get SyFy or Horror without purchasing access to a package which gives you other channels that you might not be interested in, so, is that not the same as paying for a TV Licence?
No because you don't have to pay to watch it if you don't want to. The licence is collected, by force if necessary, under penalty of law, which is stupid and outmoded.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
32,249
Location
Yorks
I only watch a few programs on BBC channels - The Repair Shop, Top Gear (now they've stopped trying to reinvent it with crap presenters), and The Green Planet with David Attenborough). I have also watched some series made by the BBC on Netflix.

They have ruined Question of Sport, Dr Who (they had so much to offer with Jodie Whittaker but the writing was just so poor), Pointless is... pointless etc...

What content are you thinking of that the BBC is making that's going straight to other platforms? I'm not aware of such a thing happening.

It was more in response to the above quoted post - although it was later clarified that some programmes had previously been shown on terrestrial TV before (in which case I don't object).

However I don't believe they are in a position to be making exclusive content for Britbox as an example.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
26,262
Location
Scotland
However I don't believe they are in a position to be making exclusive content for Britbox as an example.
That depends on how that content is funded. If it's produced entirely from the proceeds of Britbox then I can't see a valid objection.
 

Geezertronic

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2009
Messages
4,013
Location
Birmingham
Only if you want to watch/record live TV.

  • The law says you need to be covered by a TV Licence to:
    • watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV, on any channel
    • watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service (such as ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV, Sky Go, etc.)
    • download or watch any BBC programmes on BBC iPlayer.


So basically anyone with a TV or a device capable of streaming TV content needs a TV license
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
32,249
Location
Yorks
That depends on how that content is funded. If it's produced entirely from the proceeds of Britbox then I can't see a valid objection.

I can, if they haven't got enough content to fill their existing channels.
 

Ediswan

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2012
Messages
1,528
Location
Stevenage
You can't get SyFy or Horror without purchasing access to a package which gives you other channels that you might not be interested in, so, is that not the same as paying for a TV Licence?
Horror Channel is available on Freesat.
 

LOL The Irony

Established Member
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
4,725
Location
Wherever Lupin is
Given the demographic BBC Three is aimed at I'd be surprised if many of their shows were being watched more live through broadcast compared to catchup.
Actually, their viewing figures tanked when they made the switch to online. They also lost their Fox animated sitcoms to ITV as a result of the move, which would've played into the loss in viewers.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
26,262
Location
Scotland
So basically anyone with a TV or a device capable of streaming TV content needs a TV license
I thought so as well, but I believe it isn't the capability of the device that matters but how it is used. So if I claim that I never watch or record live TV it's up to TV Licencing to show that I do.

Specifically, the Telecommunications Act 2003 § 368 states:
References in this Part to using a television receiver are references to using it for—

(a)receiving all or any part of any television programme, or

(b)receiving all or any part of a programme included in an on-demand programme service which is provided by the BBC,
So if I do not watch/record live TV or use the iPlayer then I don't need a TV licence.
 

Caboose Class

Member
Joined
27 Aug 2021
Messages
110
Location
YORK
  • The law says you need to be covered by a TV Licence to:
    • watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV, on any channel
    • watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service (such as ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV, Sky Go, etc.)
    • download or watch any BBC programmes on BBC iPlayer.


So basically anyone with a TV or a device capable of streaming TV content needs a TV license
Well I for one own a TV set and do NOT need a Licence because I don't watch TV on it - be it streamed, terrestrial or even extra-terrestrial. I use mine for watching DVDs on. I wouldn't pay tuppence a year to watch the total crap that is broadcast on the telly these days.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,318
So basically anyone with a TV or a device capable of streaming TV content needs a TV license
I have literally no idea how you got that idea from what you quoted.
It literally says you need a license to watch live TV on a TV or online or to be able to use iPlayer. It says nothing at all about if you have a device capable of doing so but don't actually watch live TV or use iPlayer.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
29,063
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
But that's not 'other platforms' though is it, really. It's going to the licence-fee supported iPlayer. And it was a highly contentious decision at the time given that BBC Three had much higher viewership than BBC Four.
BBC Four is only for nice people with an IQ high enough to appreciate the quality of offered programmes.

Lineker is freelance, you want the talent, you need to pay the going rate
Maybe the two-year licence freeze might put an end to the BBC view that they can act in a way that is seen to be seen as profligate?
 
Last edited:

Geezertronic

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2009
Messages
4,013
Location
Birmingham
I have literally no idea how you got that idea from what you quoted.
It literally says you need a license to watch live TV on a TV or online or to be able to use iPlayer. It says nothing at all about if you have a device capable of doing so but don't actually watch live TV or use iPlayer.

It was a tongue-in-cheek interpretation of the text from the website which is, in my opinion, vague at best and is why enforcement officers can manipulate them for the purposes of pressurising people into paying because they have a TV. Nothing more than that.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,318
It was a tongue-in-cheek interpretation of the text from the website which is, in my opinion, vague at best and is why enforcement officers can manipulate them for the purposes of pressurising people into paying because they have a TV. Nothing more than that.
I'd hardly say the wording is vague at all and I really don't see how it could be seen as vague.
The text absolutely literally says "watch or record programmes" live on TV or online or "download or watch" on iPlayer.
The text is pretty clear to me and none of the text in any form could even be thought to say anything about having a device capable of.
 

Cloud Strife

Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
479
So if I claim that I never watch or record live TV it's up to TV Licencing to show that I do.
In general, the licence fee relies on nothing more than intimidation. There are so, so many materials online of people thoroughly baiting TV licence inspectors, and it's very clear that they have really no ability to do anything except rely on people confessing or actually showing them the TV connected to something that will let them receive live TV.

I had a run-in with one of them once at university. He came to the door, saying that we didn't have a licence and that he wanted to check that we didn't have a TV. I told him that he wasn't getting in, and that I wanted him to get out of our garden. He starts the big 'do you know who I am son?' spiel, so I told him that he was an a**e with a clipboard. He starts to get really agitated at this point, and he threatened to come back with a search warrant.

"Off you go then" really riled him up, and he started to try and caution me. The problem was, I'd recently read up on PACE for a university assignment, so I knew exactly what he was doing and why he was doing it. I thought that it would be funny to caution him in return, so I got some paper and a pen and started to caution him. He lost it at that point, and stormed off shouting that he was 'gonna get me'.

Truth is, we had a big TV in the living room, but it was connected to the PS2. There was nothing to admit to, and the "inspector" had all the powers of the man down the pub.

No-one ever turned up with a search warrant, much to my dismay.

The whole TV licencing system relies on fear, nothing more. I'm a supporter of the BBC, but the TV licence should be collected through a fee on electricity/water connections, not through a private company that sends goons to people in order to threaten and intimidate them.
 

adrock1976

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2013
Messages
4,042
Location
What's it called? It's called Cumbernauld
I read online a few years ago that the set being built for Eastenders was suffering delays and was going over budget.

An idea here: if this one programme/piece of [insert word of choice] is claimed to draw so many fans and supporters, perhaps the BBC could make this one programme subscription only (or have the fans to have a whip round) to cover the budget overruns?

It is noted that the number of times I had seen that programme I can count on one hand, and I can remember Lesley Grantham, Anita Dobson, Dot Cotton running the launderette, the two poodles Willy and Rolly, and Lofty the barman. That was the last time I ever watched.
 

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
2,753
Location
Croydon
I read online a few years ago that the set being built for Eastenders was suffering delays and was going over budget.

An idea here: if this one programme/piece of [insert word of choice] is claimed to draw so many fans and supporters, perhaps the BBC could make this one programme subscription only (or have the fans to have a whip round) to cover the budget overruns?

It is noted that the number of times I had seen that programme I can count on one hand, and I can remember Lesley Grantham, Anita Dobson, Dot Cotton running the launderette, the two poodles Willy and Rolly, and Lofty the barman. That was the last time I ever watched.
Lost on me as I don't watch fiction. I like news, current affairs and documentaries.

Although I like documentaries I have lost interest in the Yesterday channel. I have stopped watching it because getting on to 20 minutes in every hour is advertising !. I realised I was turning away/off just over half way through a program as the frequency and length of advert breaks increased as they hoped you were hooked !.
 

geoffk

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
2,369
Good, as far as I’m concerned.
The licence fee is 43p a day, good value I would think. That's not to say I don't think the BBC has lost its way in some areas. The licence fee is both its strength and its weakness - strength because it doesn't have to rely on advertising revenue, weakness because "he who pays the piper calls the tune". I find the news has a right wing bias, uncritical of brexit, which is rarely even mentioned, while Question Time has been for years just a populist shouting shop. I always now watch Channel 4 News. But drama and documentaries are generally good although the BBC's costs seem to be higher than its competitors.
 

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
4,191
Location
Elginshire
It is noted that the number of times I had seen that programme I can count on one hand, and I can remember Lesley Grantham, Anita Dobson, Dot Cotton running the launderette, the two poodles Willy and Rolly, and Lofty the barman. That was the last time I ever watched.
Ethel's "little Willy" was actually a pug! ;)
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,199
Location
nowhere
I have stopped watching it because getting on to 20 minutes in every hour is advertising !. I realised I was turning away/off just over half way through a program as the frequency and length of advert breaks increased as they hoped you were hooked !.

You'll want to report that to Ofcom if that's the case -

2. Time devoted to television advertising and teleshopping spots on any channel in any clock hour must not exceed 12 minutes.

Further to Rule 2:
3. Non public service channels must show no more than an average of 12 minutes of television advertising and teleshopping spots for every hour of transmission across the broadcasting day, of which no more than 9 minutes may be television advertising.

That same document also rather nullifies concerns around the BBC becoming an ad-ridden mess, unless it's also in the government's sights. Different rules for public service broadcasters (C4) which permits only an average of 7 mins/hour (8 between 18:00 & 23:00)
 

Smokey Joe

Member
Joined
21 May 2021
Messages
420
Location
Grimsby, England
I take it you've not watched ITV recently then?
I said in the post you quoted that I have not watched live TV in a year and 4 months, none at all.
  • The law says you need to be covered by a TV Licence to:
    • watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV, on any channel
    • watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service (such as ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV, Sky Go, etc.)
    • download or watch any BBC programmes on BBC iPlayer.
So basically anyone with a TV or a device capable of streaming TV content needs a TV license
Umm, no they don't. It's perfectly legal to have and own TVs and TV equipment, as long as it's not used to watch live TV, or use BBC Iplayer.
Not only are DVDs allowed freely, but streaming shows like Friends on Netflix, or Star Wars Mandalorian on Disney+ for example are fine without a TV licence, a lot of people don't realise they do not need a license.

I get the threats from BBC all the time.

You'll want to report that to Ofcom if that's the case -
..."2. Time devoted to television advertising and teleshopping spots on any channel in any clock hour must not exceed 12 minutes."...
American TV shows are often 40-45 minutes in length and are always in hour long slots.
American cartoons likewise are usually 20 minutes long, but take a full half hour slot up on the TV planner.
It appears these rules are totally ignored sadly.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
29,063
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Looking at the title of this thread, should the BBC be "destroyed" by the current Government, the Chancellor would have already been aware of the financial implications of redundancy payments that would follow on for any BBC employed staff.

With regards to those freelance people, they will be under a contractual agreement with the BBC which would normally have implications for the contract being subject to early termination.

Who actually owns the buildings from which the BBC operate?
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
2,864
Location
Birmingham
Looking at the title of this thread, should the BBC be "destroyed" by the current Government, the Chancellor would have already been aware of the financial implications of redundancy payments that would follow on for any BBC employed staff.
The hammer blow to one of our biggest earning industries (media) and soft power projections would be a rather large concern.
 

Top