# British TV can take a long walk off a short pier **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 8, 2003, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tv-can-take-a-long-walk-off-a-short-pier/217672 "2003-12-08T02:15:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Elza\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Elza\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elza_B)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tv-can-take-a-long-walk-off-a-short-pier/217672/21 "2003-12-09T14:47:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Herge \* > \*\*There are a few gems on BBC of course… > > The Office - genius, no other word for it. Ricky Gervais is comic genius, his timing, the way he delivers the lines, everything. Most of the cast are “straight men” (except for Gareth), but he pulls it off brilliantly. > > Coupling - good silly fun. I like this show - not too demanding, but still makes me laugh. Mostly jokes about sex, but at least they are funny jokes! > > Avabeth, I too like EE. If you want the latest gossip then let me know - I can spill the beans for you. \*\* Oh, don’t get me wrong…I love the Office and I love Coupling, but not constant reruns of both - it sort of takes the humor out of it when you’ve seen it for the 30th time. (Of course, I have the DVDs of all of them, so I can watch whenever I want now). I’d just rather see REAL British television than reality shows over and over again - sitcoms, dramas…etc. I’m not big on reality shows either way, American or British. And PLEASE spill the beans - I haven’t seen EE in over a month and I’m dying to know what’s happened with Den’s return and Kat and Alfie. Instead of clogging up the board, feel free to drop me an email at [avabeth@comcast.net](mailto:avabeth@comcast.net). You will be my favorite person:D! Ava ---
**Author:** ![lilabet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b38774/32.png) [@lilabet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lilabet)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tv-can-take-a-long-walk-off-a-short-pier/217672/22 "2003-12-09T17:29:30Z")
I personally much prefer to pay a pissy ten quid a month to the BBC and have TV - WITHOUT FUCKING ANNOYING ADVERTS - than not pay it and be interrupted every two fucking seconds for some inane drivel that some wanker somewhere decided would make me want to buy whatever piece of crappy junk that they’re selling. Rant over. Phew, that feels better 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Herge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a183cd/32.png) [@Herge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Herge)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tv-can-take-a-long-walk-off-a-short-pier/217672/23 "2003-12-09T17:32:01Z")
You pay? (ahem… of _course_ I’m only joking, in case the g men are reading this…) ---
**Author:** ![WILLASS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/54ee81/32.png) [@WILLASS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WILLASS)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tv-can-take-a-long-walk-off-a-short-pier/217672/24 "2003-12-09T20:31:53Z")
I have to say that I don’t think the license fee for the BBC seems that unfair when you consider how much cable costs and the fact that you _still_ get adverts. If you pay a set amount I say that there should be absolutley no adverts. I also think that the output of the BBC is pretty good compared to most countries. An American friend of mine was astonished at the small amount of channels we have but conceded that at least it was made up of mostly quality (and varied) viewing. Reality TV and DIY shows do seem to be in abundance but there must be a market for it otherwise they would pull it from the schedule. These type of shows seem to have taken over from Gardening and Cookery (which I like) shows which seemed to be the ‘flavour of the month’ a while back. All in all I think we have it pretty sweet compared to most countries. Incidentally there aren’t any reality TV or DIY shows on tonight, but it is rather a lame line up. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tv-can-take-a-long-walk-off-a-short-pier/217672/25 "2003-12-09T23:05:05Z")
The licence fee is unfair when you only use the set for watching videos. It’s unfair if you don’t get digital (including BBC digital channels funded by your licence fee). It’s unfair if you live in one room in a student househare, and have one TV, yet pay the same licence fee as a millionairre in mansion with a TV in every room. It’s unfair that blind people only get a £10 discount. I’m not even going to go into income - I don’t need to; it’s unfair in so many ways before you even get to that. It’s not the existence of the licence itself I disagree with, it’s the blanket nature of it. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tv-can-take-a-long-walk-off-a-short-pier/217672/26 "2003-12-09T23:15:13Z")
But is the funding for the BBC as unfair as the method of funding for commercial television? I don’t even own a teevee but I pay for everyone else’s commercial viewing every time I go to the supermarket – I don’t pay for the BBC. Of course, some folks do believe the Murdoch crap that commercial teevee is “free to air”, I presume they think the funding of commercial stations comes out of shareholder profits and director’s bonuses. Surely they can’t be that stupid . . . So, yeah, for me the License Fee is far, far fairer than the way commercial channels are funded, and I’m not a poor family with lots of kids – them’s the people that pay the most for ‘Corrie’ and the rest of the bollocks. More tomorrow because there are so many falsehoods in this thread I feel the need to correct at least some . . . ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tv-can-take-a-long-walk-off-a-short-pier/217672/27 "2003-12-09T23:53:14Z")
I do agree with a licence fee in general, mainly because I like the principle of a state television station that isn’t directly funded by the government. I think when the television licence was first brought in, few households had more than one TV, videos and digital TV hadn’t been invented, and poor people were less likely to own televisions. A flat-rate licence fee (for colour televisions, different rate for black & white TV’s, of course) would have made sense, then. Now the nature of television ownership has changed completely - yet the licence fee hasn’t. Well, except by rising far above inflation. ---
**Author:** ![ianzin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ed655f/32.png) [@ianzin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ianzin)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tv-can-take-a-long-walk-off-a-short-pier/217672/28 "2003-12-09T23:53:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TwistofFate \* > **Compared to… who?** Answer: someone with at least sufficient candle power to read an autocue and enunciate his words. Neither of which Wright can do to a professional standard. > [@](#): > > **But of course plenty of people who have swallowed Rupert Murdoch’s hymnsheet of Anti-BBC rhetoric can churn it out ad-nauseum. Rupert’s gigantic media conglomerate dance to his whim like the Pied Piper of Pay TV. See how easy it is to generalise opposition to a viewpoint? 😉** You’re right, of course, it is a lazy argumentative tactic - but then again this _is_ The Pit. However, while I concede the point about unhelpful generalisation, I’d like to make one valid point before moving on. You are not quite comparing like with like. There is an oft-recycled lie that the BBC does not run adverts. The truth is that it _does_ run adverts, to near-saturation levels, but they happen to all be adverts for BBC products. Unless you are uncommonly scrupulous, and very quick with the remote, if you watch BBC TV you will be saturated with BBC propaganda which never addresses the fundamental question at stake (see below for more). For this reason, I think it was okay to refer in passing to people basing their views on recycled Beeb propaganda (albeit I have already admitted it was rather a cheap shot). However, you have no equivalent basis for assuming that any of my arguments proceed from allegiance to Rupert Murdoch or exposure to any of his propaganda. I don’t buy any of his papers, and I don’t watch any of his TV channels. > [@](#): > > **I don’t think the Licence fee is a fair system for those who don’t want to watch the BBC, but how else should a state broadcasting system like the BBC be funded?** The fundamental question, to which I referred above, is not _how_ it should be funded but _whether_ an entity like the BBC should be funded _at all_. I maintain that it is simply illegitimate to tax people for something they haven’t asked for, don’t want and are quite happy never to have or to use. This is the fundamental question which I think is worth addressing. The thing is, even BBC apologists don’t really agree with the principle. Look, **Twisty** , in the course of the forthcoming year, I’d like to take some money off you for a project I have in mind. It might be to write a book about my recent travels. It might be to make a short video of a play a friend of mine has just written. Or I might just want to pay a mate of mine, who is utterly rubbish at reading out loud, to read out loud for half an hour a week. The thing is, I’m not going to tell you what I’m going to do with your money. You have no say. If I happen to produce something you like, that’s just lucky, but I might just choose to spend it on a programme saying that Guiness is crap and anyone who drinks it is a stupid drunk. Remember, YOU are paying for me to do this, and if when you see my output you think it’s garbage, well, that’s just tough. You pay, but you get no say. What’s more, they’ve just passed a law that says you and everyone you know has to fund my project, whether you want to or not, and if you don’t you can actually be sent to prison. Now, how ready are you to send me your money? How fair do you think it is that you have to pay up front, you can be sent to prison if you don’t, you get no control over how I spend it, and even if you hate what I produce you will never see a penny of your money back? If you seriously think this is a fair and sensible way to fund creative projects, then please send me £100 immediately. I don’t think you are going to do this. So what makes the BBC any different? It’s nice to see that someone adrift of the facts has bothered to offer the old argument that ‘it’s worth it to have the programmes uninterrupted by adverts’. First of all, you have the option of videotaping anything interesting and then fast-forwarding through the ads. Secondly, the commercial sector is perfectly capable of offering this option. A friend of mine in LA sits down every week to watch Sex And The City on HBO. She enjoys the show, and no adverts interrupt the programme. I’m told that Sky often show movies without interruptions from adverts. (I can’t say for sure because I don’t subscribe to Sky.) My basic argument is this: in the real world, there are two systems that make sense. One is that you pay, but you have some say. The other is that you have no say, but you don’t pay either. The BBC offers the worst of both worlds: we have to pay and yet we have no say in how they spend (and I would say ‘waste’) the money. And there _is_ wastage. I have witnessed really appalling BBC waste of licence-fee money first-hand, and can provide good examples. ---
**Author:** ![Purd\_Werfect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e47c2d/32.png) [@Purd\_Werfect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Purd_Werfect)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2003, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tv-can-take-a-long-walk-off-a-short-pier/217672/29 "2003-12-10T00:07:42Z")
I don’t have tv anymore, but when I did, BBC America earned much forgiveness for anything crap by having Ground Force on with the ever-braless Charlie Dimmock. It’s sad, but there was a time when the show was the high-point of my day. I’ve grown since then. (Plus I’m too cheap for cable.) ---
**Author:** ![hanza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/eb8c5e/32.png) [@hanza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hanza)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2003, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tv-can-take-a-long-walk-off-a-short-pier/217672/30 "2003-12-10T00:31:04Z")
I saw something on T.V recently (although it’s confusing the crap out of me trying to remember where, seeing as I don’t have any kind of English language T.V at home), about how the BBC will be putting a lot of it’s vast back catalogue of shows onto the internet to be downloaded. Downloading would be free to anyone who paid the licence fee, but they would charge everyone else. They seemed to foresee great profits rolling in from this venture from people like **Avabeth** , apparently enough profit for them to be able to start to phase out, or at least reduce the licence fee- which is a bit outdated in today’s world of digital television and whatnot. I guess the next step after that would be to phase out the licence fee entirely and make everybody pay. Just please don’t mess with Raido 4, that’s all I ask. ---
**Author:** ![Morrigoon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/858c86/32.png) [@Morrigoon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morrigoon)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2003, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tv-can-take-a-long-walk-off-a-short-pier/217672/31 "2003-12-10T00:39:05Z")
So here I am in the US, with our beyond-crappy television (and, living as I do in LA, I know all too well how out of touch with reality American TV producers are!), but my one hope for relief, BBC America, instead of giving me the decent comedies (Vicar of Dibley, anyone) and decidedly British shows (like reruns of the Michael Ball show… I’d give anything to see the entire 2 seasons!), we get… … MORE CRAPPY HOME IMPROVEMENT SHOWS! If TLC is already doing Trading Spaces, why does BBC America think I want to watch Changing Rooms? Honestly! And I wouldn’t be so mad about Changing Rooms if TLC (The Learning Channel) would go back to the really cool documentarires they used to do. Instead, I get positively inundated with this inane decorating crap. I get enough of that shit at my mother’s house (whose tv is almost permanently set to HGTV: home and garden television - no, I’m not kidding.) Oh hell, I’d even take episodes of Noel’s House Party over another backyard (sorry, garden) makeover show. ---
**Author:** ![Manduck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manduck/32/256_2.png) [@Manduck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Manduck)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2003, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tv-can-take-a-long-walk-off-a-short-pier/217672/32 "2003-12-10T02:49:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ianzin \* > \*\*The notion of TV you _have_ to pay for (via a compulsory tax) _even if you don’t want to watch it_ is insane. I can listen to BBC radio feed over the internet and not pay a penny for it. So not only are you paying for something you don’t use, you are paying for something that _I_ am using and I don’t pay squat! There, doesn’t that make you feel better? 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tv-can-take-a-long-walk-off-a-short-pier/217672/33 "2003-12-12T11:13:44Z")
**ianzin** - You’re either demonstrating deeper insight into how television should be funded than most, or your ingrained prejudices and ignorance outstrip just about anyone else I’ve ever known on this particular subject. Ftr, I, for one, see no sense in the utter nonsense you’ve posted so please enlighten me as to: **One** : How you think commercial television is funded, and **Two** : How you think that is more equitable than the current method of BBC funding ? **Three** : Just as a starting point (for general discussion), this is the very first paragraph of your very first post in this thread: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ianzin \* > Not only is **Herge** right, but he’s missed a major part of the awfulness of it. Pretty much everywhere else in the world, if you don’t like a particular channel or network you can ignore it, turn off, choose something else and you don’t pay for it. Over here, even if you have no interest at all in the pathetic and ignorant rubbish churned out ad nauseam by the BBC, you still have to pay for it. The notion of TV you _have_ to pay for (via a compulsory tax) _even if you don’t want to watch it_ is insane. I can’t see a thing there that makes sense. Anyway, please help me out by offering a comment [on the following:](http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/news/news180.htm) "The level of the UK Television Licence is one of the lowest in Europe. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland are more expensive. Only France, Holland, Ireland, and Italy are cheaper - they also take advertising. " **Four** : Finally, the following costs me (daily) about 2/3 the price of a newspaper: [ul] [li]8 national BBC television channels[/li][li]10 national BBC radio networks[/li][li]Over 50 local BBC services[/li][li]High-quality local and national news, debate, documentaries, live music, original drama and entertainment[/li][li]Childrens’ programmes, educational and interactive services, orchestras, concerts, minority language programmes, social action campaigns[/li][li]Training and support for British production skills and talent in music, drama, film, radio and television[/li][/ul] - fwiw, above all, I value the quality - and \*quality \*is the operable word - of the current affairs coverage, news coverage, the web site and the way (fact of) the presence of the BBC means standards are maintained throughout the broadcasting industry in the UK. Using your implied example of the US - and the obvious dearth of quality news and current affairs broadcasting in that country - please relieve me of my concerns that corporate/Murdoch broadcasting would better serve quality ? - Please feel free to address the issues directly and with clarity because, at the moment, you read (to me) like someone who knows the price of everything (and isn’t afraid to tell everyone who’ll listen) and the value of nothing, and that, obvioulsy, isn’t what you intend ? ---
**Author:** ![alexandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e68b1a/32.png) [@alexandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alexandra)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tv-can-take-a-long-walk-off-a-short-pier/217672/34 "2003-12-12T11:42:47Z")
> [@](#): > > You’re right, of course, it is a lazy argumentative tactic - but then again this is The Pit. However, while I concede the point about unhelpful generalisation, I’d like to make one valid point before moving on. You are not quite comparing like with like. There is an oft-recycled lie that the BBC does not run adverts. Said ads not interrupting programmes, being shorter and generally less annoying. ---
**Author:** ![Achilles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dc4da7/32.png) [@Achilles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achilles)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tv-can-take-a-long-walk-off-a-short-pier/217672/35 "2003-12-12T11:52:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elmwood \* > \*\*"'Ere we got white van man motoring counterclockwise 'round the roundabout … up over the verge … and onto the pavement. Looks like 'is bonnet is damaged. God save the Queen." > \*\* I laughed so hard a piece of my breakfast sandwich came out my nose. Don’t worry - it was only egg. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tv-can-take-a-long-walk-off-a-short-pier/217672/36 "2003-12-12T12:01:40Z")
**London\_Calling** omits to mention the stupendous BBC website, which is a phenomenon unto itself. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tv-can-take-a-long-walk-off-a-short-pier/217672/37 "2003-12-12T12:05:09Z")
I think he mentions it (but briefly) in the penultimate paragraph, **jjimm** ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tv-can-take-a-long-walk-off-a-short-pier/217672/38 "2003-12-12T12:26:33Z")
Ian, would you agree that other stations would have the same level of wastage that the BC would show? ---
**Author:** ![Ximenean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/aca169/32.png) [@Ximenean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ximenean)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tv-can-take-a-long-walk-off-a-short-pier/217672/39 "2003-12-12T12:31:16Z")
There’s no BPC (British Publishing Corporation), but somehow we still manage to have high quality newspapers and magazines. So why does the TV industry need such massive public intervention? I say again - those of us who like the BBC should pay for it (and it can continue to make excellent, ad-free telly), those who don’t shouldn’t. Where’s the problem? You can’t object that the Beeb wouldn’t survive under voluntary subscription and at the same claim that the current licence fee is a bargain (which I would agree with). Sure, the fee would have to go up, or the BBC’s output go down, but why _is_ the BBC making programmes like _Fame Academy_, anyway? How is that a “public service”? ---
**Author:** ![One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/838e76/32.png) [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/One_And_Only_Wanderers)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tv-can-take-a-long-walk-off-a-short-pier/217672/40 "2003-12-12T12:40:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Usram \* > \*\*but why _is_ the BBC making programmes like _Fame Academy_, anyway? How is that a “public service”? \*\* While I myself can’t stand Fame Academy, it seems that a large proportion of the viewing public does in fact tune in. As ‘the public’ is being entertained it is a ‘public service’. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tv-can-take-a-long-walk-off-a-short-pier/217672.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tv-can-take-a-long-walk-off-a-short-pier/217672.md?page=3)