Thursday, November 08 2012, 9:21PM
“I am more concerned and angry that my money has been used to support the employment of certian people (Jimmy Saville etc) who we now know to have committed the most terrible crimes against frightened, vunerable children. I doubt we will ever know just how high and wide the knowledge of this (or even suspicions) reached but I no longer trust the BBC. And I strongly object to them receiving any more money from TV Licences. Maybe the BBC should give the money made from licences over the last 30 years to the victims and their families? But the BBC should not benefit any further from the fees paid by the public. They should be ashamed.”
Friday, November 09 2012, 4:46AM
“erm...........etruriaQ64 is a little off subject here, but I will go with it. Girls Saville and others ALLEGEDLY fondled, groped or whatever were probably NOT very young and inexperienced children but perhaps (?) teenaged nubile young tarts that liked the 'Adventure' of it all with a Celebrity. This DOES happen, you know. Until the whole story is out, IF it ever is, stick to the TV License question that IS the MAIN topic here.”
Saturday, November 10 2012, 2:09PM
“Wasn`t the license originally introduced to control who or what is broadcast over the airwaves? I always thought it was just to pay for regulatory controls to prevent all and sundry from experimenting and clogging the available bandwidth with twaddle . Since regulations should be passed through parliament , with a non-fiscal cost , then surely the broadcasting license is paid by the broadcaster involved and should not necessarily be passed to EVERY person in the land whether they use that particular broadcaster or not. How come the license fee is only ever advertised on BBC ? Why is it not shown on other channels ? What if someone never watches the BBC - Could they argue that they had no idea that a license is a requirement to OWN a TV never mind watch one ? What if someone just uses a TV to watch DVDs or use it as a monitor for their computer? Is it actually a legal requirement to pay for a company rather than a service? How come that this country , which is an advocate of free speech , could fine or send to jail those who persistently insist on that freedom to choose what they watch and pay for? I do not use SKY myself but those who wish to watch this service pay this broadcaster to provide the service THEY want . Similarly those who use Virgin Media pay for that service through subscription. This means that those viewers are forced to pay TWICE .Isn`t it time that the BBC is brought up to date . Many people argue that the BBC broadcasts quality TV and is worth every penny but if that includes such programs as Eastenders or Strictly Come Dancing then I raise my hands in disbelief. Whenever these , or other programs of the same ilk - that includes Coronation St et al , are on I usually change channels in order to find some real entertainment.It was not intended to pay for overpaid so called celebrities to live the life of luxury in the name of so-called entertainment. Also I do not use BBC radio either - I have no truck with using commercial Radio complete with some of its banal advertising.”
Saturday, November 10 2012, 2:11PM
“The BBC don't need licence fees to remain impartial. That just needs integrity. Integrity is free.Aside from The Thick of It, which is brilliant, I don't think I have watched a single BBC programme all year. Quality TV is debatable and all comes down to personal taste. The BBC also caters for the lowest common denominator as much as many other channels. As their output deteriorates, other channels are raising their own standards with home produced programming, and also showing the cream of US television, which for about ten years or so, has been producing fine quality, thought provoking shows that have equalled and in some cases surpassed anything we have produced.The licence fee should be phased out. There is a lot of choice out there and paying for the BBC should be just that; a choice. For all those who dont mind paying, a subscription fee could be implemented. £6-8 per month for access to all BBC services. Those who object would no longer have to pay and in turn would not have access. Commercialism would no doubt soon follow, but there is no rule stating that the BBC have to adhere to other channels trends of having so many commercial breaks. In fact, the BBC could quite easily run a premium service with no commercial interuptions at all for an extra fee. None of this is unrealstic with the way digital services are in place. It is outdated and clearly divides opinion”
Saturday, November 10 2012, 2:14PM
“Sorry but 30 years of our kids clapping to jim will fix it (jimmy savile)there is your disgrace like i said before i dont watch the bbc so why should i pay for it?I pay to watch sky,so what part of that do u not understand?If im only watching what i want to watch witch is not the bbc why should i pay?For the comment about jimmy savile he was reported on numerous times but they still chose to employ him not once not twice but one two three four five six seven time,i dont pay for my kids to clap to pedos,for those who disagree here is a blue peter badge”
Tuesday, November 13 2012, 2:35PM
“I think its very fair. A common misconception is you don't need a licence if you watch on a laptop. Sort of true, the reality is if you only watch catch-up services online, then you don't need a licence. For example, you don't need one to use BBC iPlayer, or ITV player, to catch up on programmes after they have been shown on TV.I enjoy programmes on the BBC and find them entertaining and educational. Everyone is unique and we all like the same things life would be boring.Lets agree to disagree.”
Something about your area you want to voice and debate with others? Let your community know and see how they feel.
Join the debate
Copyright © 2013 Local World. All Rights Reserved.