Should the BBC License fee be abolished?

Question

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20080903/tuk-bbc-criticised-for-10m-travel-bill-6323e80.html

"The BBC has been accused of being "frivolous" with licence fee-payers' money after it revealed that more than £10 million was spent on flights last year."

Answer 1

I know Americans have never had to pay a fee to watch TV like they do in England! But, I remember, long before TV came into being, we had to pay for a radio license! We paid it to the Post Office in my town! I think BOTH TV and Radio fees should have been abolished years ago! It's just another way of scamming the public!! The air is free, so why do they still have these stupid fees!?? LOL! My Dad, rest his soul! had a whole bunch of radios stashed in our house!! It was a fetish with him! But, if we had used all of them, WOW! we'd be paying a fee every year for each of them!! GET REAL ENGLAND!! Your Tv isn't that great, neither is ours for that matter!!!

Answer 2

i dont pay for a licence anyways, i watch zattoo on my pc haven't paid it in a year they even know about my situation also, only fools pay for tv nowadays,

Answer 3

Yes.

The BBC sent more journos to cover the Olympics than we sent athletes.

Answer 4

No, it's still the best broadcaster in the world, and I couldn't cope with DFS adverts on all channels!

Just to add a point, like it or not a TV is a luxury item. By buying one you accept the terms of use.

Answer 5

I heard the BBC sent nearly 500 staff to cover the Olympics....probably all first class all inclusive in the Biijing Hilton ...  ... the BBC should be abolished altogether ..

Answer 6

Yes. The BBC should now compete in the open market with other broadcasters. It's high time the playing field was levelled.

Answer 7

Yes, they no longer hold the "top dog" position they used to.

Answer 8

Yes. It's a complete rip off.

The BBC has commercials on all it's channels (for it's own programmes of course) which makes whatever you want to watch run late so it's no different than any other channel really.

The only BBC programmes i do like are Dr Who, Torchwood, Top Gear, Eastenders and Holby City.

Answer 9

No, despite the failings, the BBC is something to be proud of.

The quality of the output compared to ITV and Sky is fantastic, only Channel 4 comes close and they are struggling.  ITV are asking to be let off doing some of their higher quality and worthwhile programming because they don't think they get enough in ad revenue and if that's not an argument as to why the BBC and license fee are a good think I don't know what is.

It gets me that the people who complain about the pittance we pay in licensing, think nothing of subscribing to the lower quality service that is Sky.  Although I do think Sky/cable subscribers should be allowed to be exempt the licence fee providing the cable/sat providers are then charged a per household charge which has to be added to subscriptions.

To quote Stephen Fry "We can afford the BBC, because we can't afford not to."

Answer 10

yes and the BBC along with it, its a pure rip off, one of the many in circulation in to days Britain

Answer 11

The short answer: No.

The long answer: noooooooooooooooooooooooooo

If you think the BBC is toffee nosed and up itself, and there is anything worth watching on ITV1, ITV2 and Sky, then you should not see the license fee as an unfair tax.  No- it's an incredibly fair fine!

Answer 12

Yes!

Answer 13

YES, why should I be forced to pay for something on TV that I neither like or care for, if I watch something on ITV then I either watch the adverts or make myself a cup of coffee.

If the BBC was broken up and made to pay its own way broadcasting in the UK wouldn't all of a sudden die, it may even improve with more and better competition.

Because lets get something straight shall we, Television in Britain should not now in the 21st century be considered a luxury and if you have to pay for a TV licence and also be on a low income, you still have to pay the same as a millionaire and that to me is a grossly unfair tax on the poor.