Posted by Ben @ December 23rd, 2009 7:08 pm. Filed under: Abolish This!,Can't someone else pay the tax?,Clearly You've Thought This Through,I Could've Looked This Up But Instead I Watched Countdown,Is Research The Same Thing As Making Shit Up? Good.,It Says So In The Daily Mail,Stop Spending My Money On Things I Don't Understand.,Thank You For Coming -- It's Been Very Useful,That's SO UNFAIR! I HATE YOU!,The Nasty Television Upset Me!,There's Already A Solution But Don't Let That Stop You From Bothering The PM,This Is The Worst Kind Of Discrimination! The Kind Against Me!,Unreasonable Demands,spelin an grammer — Tags: Mr Richard Moore —
Oh dear, we have another “scrap the TV license” moron in our midsts. And this one is armed with misinformation! Let’s get this over with…
by Mr Richard MooreWhy should the BBC be given free money, whilst other TV channels gain no funding from the BBC TV License?
Why also is it satisfactory for the BBC to outsourse it’s published programs to e.g. BBC Americas for viewing abroad.
Why also is it satisfactory for the BBC to use UK License holders money to spurn products for their own profit from the UK public, i.e. childrens toy product etc…?
With the current economic state the country has been placed into, would it not enable families with a lower income to utilise the monies used for a TV License on more benificial items, i.e. feeding their family?
Is it not fair to the other broadcast network’s such as ITV, Channel 4 etc… to not recieve monies from the TV License.
Support the scrappage of the BBC TV License, sign the petition!
Okay, let’s dissect this one, shall we?
Why should the BBC be given free money, whilst other TV channels gain no funding from the BBC TV License?
Because the BBC is a public broadcasting service, and ITV, Channel 4, Channel Five, Sky etc. are businesses supported by advertising.
Why also is it satisfactory for the BBC to outsourse it’s published programs to e.g. BBC Americas for viewing abroad.
Actually, haha, they don’t. What happens is this: BBC Worldwide, the business arm of the BBC, is given the rights to distribute the shows to other territories. What happens then is that BBC America has to bid for those rights, and if they succeed then they get the show. You probably don’t know this but until recently BBC America didn’t have the first-to-air rights to Doctor Who – the American SciFi Channel (now called SyFy) outbid them for the rights to series one through four, and they let those rights lapse this year for the one-off specials.
Additionally, BBC America (which, I need to reiterate, is a business much like ITV and British Sky Broadcasting) actually co-funds some BBC productions such as Robin Hood.
So, y’know. Research.
Why also is it satisfactory for the BBC to use UK License holders money to spurn products for their own profit from the UK public, i.e. childrens toy product etc…?
Again, this is stuff that is all handled by the BBC’s business arms and is not funded by the money they get from the TV license, you frog’s gusset.
With the current economic state the country has been placed into, would it not enable families with a lower income to utilise the monies used for a TV License on more benificial items, i.e. feeding their family?
Considering that television is a luxury item and not a utility, they could always put the TV in the loft if they can’t afford their license.
Is it not fair to the other broadcast network’s such as ITV, Channel 4 etc… to not recieve monies from the TV License.
There is some debate about this, but once again it’s worth noting that ITV, Channel 4 etc. are supported by advertising. The BBC is not.
Thanks for playing.