Tv Licensing ?

[Neil]

I actually think your stance is disgusting technodup, essentially theft from a venerable institution that in my book stands as one of the two great assets this country has left, the other being the NHS, both of which are under threat and your actions contribute to the threat.

I'd say the theft was the other way around actually, given I have no choice but to receive (and supposed to pay for) the BBC (and NHS).

If I could withhold payment to the NHS as well I would. Like the BBC it's a bloated, wasteful, out of touch drain on the country. I don't buy all the emotive national institution crap. Be the best and let people decide if they want it or not.

Like the private sector sets out such perfect examples for services.

Did you read that thread, recently, about workers employed by water companies?

How about all the other services that have been privatised? Has the public truly realised better services as a result? Or crappier services, but now with some execs and shareholders creaming off a chunk at the top.

Personally, I think the BBCs services are good value for money, given all they produce and what it costs.

 

[IDB1]

Personally, I think the BBCs services are good value for money, given all they produce and what it costs.

So do I.

 

[silverclaws]

The BBC is the pursuit of it's license fee uses private organisations and with that of the scrotes that turn up on your door using questionable means to bully one into shelling out money, they are all self employed and my suspicion is from what I have read regarding these self employed people, they are perhaps part time, perhaps even agents in various areas who get contacted by the licensing authority when no payment is received by a given date for the address on their database.

The agents have to use their own vehicles and are responsible for their own phone and fuel costs and earn their wage on a commission basis in the same way a salesman operates, but then the licence collection is run as a sales operation. But if it is run as a sales operation, why then does it seem what they do to obtain monies is allowed whereas any other organisation that uses such tactics is not ?

Now the persistant arrogant scrote that came to my door spewing words I knew were not true, I recognise him and all yesterday I was trying to remember from where, and today I remember, my local pub, I have seen him there and enough times for me to recognise.......

But I believe the compulsory license fee is on it's last legs and that because people via the internet are learning about such operations and the lies that are being circulated to extract money from us and added to that why should everyone have to pay a sum per year to fund one protected corporation and if not, there not be able to partake of any of the other corporations that offer the same service for free. Where it could be said those other broadcasting companies that operate via advertisement are having a customer base kept from them by unfair means ?

And as to the notion that the BBC will degrade if it is forced to compete in a fair market, who says it will degrade, if it is a corporation which wishes to exist and lead the market then who knows it might actually become better and more people might become interested in supporting it.

As now the way it is funded is making a lot of people dislike the BBC on that reason alone.

 

[technodup]

How about all the other services that have been privatised? Has the public truly realised better services as a result? Or crappier services, but now with some execs and shareholders creaming off a chunk at the top.

Privatisation means choice. Experiences may be positive or otherwise but key is you are free to change supplier. Not with the BBC.

Are you saying the BBC doesn't overpay it's execs? And I love the assumption that shareholders cream off money. If they do that demonstrates that the business is successful and satisfies consumers. If they don't then they lose money. I'd rather shareholders choose to take that risk than the current extortion based model.

I think it's inevitable change will happen sooner of later. It's already happening in the sacred NHS. The sooner the project is complete the better imo.

 

[Neil]

How about all the other services that have been privatised? Has the public truly realised better services as a result? Or crappier services, but now with some execs and shareholders creaming off a chunk at the top.

Privatisation means choice. Experiences may be positive or otherwise but key is you are free to change supplier.

How does that work with water supply?

It doesn't, that's how. It's just a scam predicated on the public, based on some dogmatic principles wrongly enacted on scenarios outside of their scope.

Not with the BBC.

I'm reasonably sure that if the majority of the electorate preferred it to be privatised, the politicians would jump on that bandwagon. Best part of 20 years of tory government didn't see any democratic change there, nor does any subsequent governments - so that's how that works.

Are you saying the BBC doesn't overpay it's execs? And I love the assumption that shareholders cream off money.

I'm sure, given certain perspectives, the BBC probably does pay some people more than others would like. However, what it doesn't have, is a group of people solely interested in their slice off the top of any profit.

If they do that demonstrates that the business is successful and satisfies consumers. If they don't then they lose money. I'd rather shareholders choose to take that risk than the current extortion based model.

Not everything is a business and should be run like one. And seventeenthly, how does that work with water supply?

I think it's inevitable change will happen sooner of later. It's already happening in the sacred NHS. The sooner the project is complete the better imo.

Change may well happen.

But things like the NHS are not business or commerce, they're services, that's not to say they wouldn't benefit from anything the business world has to offer, merely that they and we should never forget they are a service, first and foremost. And I'll repeat, has the public truly realised benefit from services already privatised? Or have they been sold a wooden nickle, and merely seen "profit" and revenue skimmed off the top, whilst lack of investment because of the profit ethos, has seen a lack of service / infrastructure improvement, and demands of more revenue because there's inefficiencies they've ignored in favour of funding "profit".

So the public has traded one type of waste, in favour of another, so a bunch of others can make some money, and not truly realised much in the way of better services or less cost, they've just been tricked because in some scenarios, competition is made to look as if it actually benefits the customer.

 

[technodup]

Not with the BBC.

I'm reasonably sure that if the majority of the electorate preferred it to be privatised, the politicians would jump on that bandwagon. Best part of 20 years of tory government didn't see any democratic change there, nor does any subsequent governments - so that's how that works.

Or not. There are many areas where politicians refuse to follow or reflect public opinion, but I'll cite a Euro referendum as one example.

Not everything is a business and should be run like one.

But the BBC is a business. It competes with other businesses in the marketplace. It sells programmes worldwide. It sells rights to brands, it has a huge commercial arm peddling DVDs, magazines and merchandise with revenues of £1bn+ per year. How the fnck is that not a business?

And I'll repeat, has the public truly realised benefit from services already privatised? Or have they been sold a wooden nickle, and merely seen "profit" and revenue skimmed off the top, whilst lack of investment because of the profit ethos, has seen a lack of service / infrastructure improvement, and demands of more revenue because there's inefficiencies they've ignored in favour of funding "profit".

It depends on how you measure success or improvement. And even that's largely useless as we have no way of knowing how fantastic or otherwise for example British Rail would be had privatisation not occurred. Not surprisingly I'd be inclined to say yes, because I prefer to not to live in a totalitarian world where all my services are provided by government. Competition makes prices fall, look at mobile phones or broadband compared to 10 years ago, would innovation be so fast or prices so low were BT to be in a monopoly situation? What would their incentive be?

 

[Neil]

Not with the BBC.

I'm reasonably sure that if the majority of the electorate preferred it to be privatised, the politicians would jump on that bandwagon. Best part of 20 years of tory government didn't see any democratic change there, nor does any subsequent governments - so that's how that works.

Or not. There are many areas where politicians refuse to follow or reflect public opinion, but I'll cite a Euro referendum as one example.

1. So you're saying you believe the majority of the electorate would prefer to privatise the BBC? Not buying from that funky bakery.
2. Your example is complete tosh - why is their a requirement for a referendum over Europe? Because a few loud blowhards mither?

Not everything is a business and should be run like one.

But the BBC is a business. It competes with other businesses in the marketplace. It sells programmes worldwide. It sells rights to brands, it has a huge commercial arm peddling DVDs, magazines and merchandise with revenues of £1bn+ per year. How the fnck is that not a business?

So you mean it uses some part of the business world to fund it's activities, but still doesn't have a load of shareholders wanting their bit off the top, too?

Sounds like the best of both worlds to me.

And I'll repeat, has the public truly realised benefit from services already privatised? Or have they been sold a wooden nickle, and merely seen "profit" and revenue skimmed off the top, whilst lack of investment because of the profit ethos, has seen a lack of service / infrastructure improvement, and demands of more revenue because there's inefficiencies they've ignored in favour of funding "profit".

It depends on how you measure success or improvement. And even that's largely useless as we have no way of knowing how fantastic or otherwise for example British Rail would be had privatisation not occurred. Not surprisingly I'd be inclined to say yes, because I prefer to not to live in a totalitarian world where all my services are provided by government. Competition makes prices fall, look at mobile phones or broadband compared to 10 years ago, would innovation be so fast or prices so low were BT to be in a monopoly situation? What would their incentive be?

Look at privatised water supply companies - what incentive do they have?

I'm not so sure BT is a great example of your argument - most other players can only compete, because BT is required to let them use their infrastructure. I know the natural argument, people will make - they were only in a position to obtain their infrastructure because they had a monopoly with vast guaranteed revenue - but here's the rub - like with the trains - the country needed a time when that would be so to make it practically universal - if that time had not passed, the infrastructure would have only extended to where companies could have made profit.

I'm not saying there's no good candidates for privatisation. But your mantra that it solves all evils of the public sector is either stunningly naive or hubris of the highest order, or both. I'll repeat - for most things privatised, have the public realised comprehensive benefit? Or have they merely been told they have, because of the mantra that competition will keep the prices competitive?

In many examples, what's happened is a bit of hand-waving, a bit of distraction and misdirection, whilst some nice profits have been made, and precious little service improvement has been made, or infrastructure improved - then the companies appear to wring their hands, and try and blame the situation from before they came in, and say "Sorry, we need to charge more because the infrastructure is poor, and needs improving and investment...", conveniently sweeping under the carpet, the money being set aside to keep the shareholders interested.

So in the end, the choice for the customer is Hobson's. In most cases, comprehensively, their costs haven't really been helped that much, they've just replaced one form of inefficiency with another.

I'm sure there's some exceptions on either side of that - but in the main, I believe it holds true - there are some good examples of privatisation - no doubt - and there are some awful ones too that show no benefit, and probably worse return for the "customer" - but I suspect it was more about politics and stance, than actually what would have been better for the plebs actually paying for the "service".

Which is why the public should be VERY concerned about any insidious attacks on the health service - because most modern governments have form, there.

As to the BBC, I still maintain, for the cost to the public, I believe they get good value - the whingers have options - but then as your not paying for it, you don't have an axe to grind, nor any reason to criticise.

 

[technodup]

1. So you're saying you believe the majority of the electorate would prefer to privatise the BBC? Not buying from that funky bakery.
2. Your example is complete tosh - why is their a requirement for a referendum over Europe? Because a few loud blowhards mither?

Did I say that? No. All I said was that we wouldn't necessarily get the option even if we did.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oc ... withdrawal
70% is a lot of blowhards. I'd go as far as to say it was a majority. And that's the Guardian ffs. But lets not let evidence get in the way.

Not everything is a business and should be run like one.

But the BBC is a business. It competes with other businesses in the marketplace. It sells programmes worldwide. It sells rights to brands, it has a huge commercial arm peddling DVDs, magazines and merchandise with revenues of £1bn+ per year. How the fnck is that not a business?

So you mean it uses some part of the business world to fund it's activities, but still doesn't have a load of shareholders wanting their bit off the top, too?

Sounds like the best of both worlds to me.

Or the worst. What are we if we're not shareholders in the BBC? Except all we do is contribute, there's no dividend. Shareholders only get a bit off the top because they take risks and invest in the first place, and only then when profits are made. I'm don't see why the BBC principle can't remain but the funding model change to a not for profit type model. I couldn't care less what they do, I just object to being extorted against my will.

I'm not saying there's no good candidates for privatisation. But your mantra that it solves all evils of the public sector is either stunningly naive or hubris of the highest order, or both. I'll repeat - for most things privatised, have the public realised comprehensive benefit? Or have they merely been told they have, because of the mantra that competition will keep the prices competitive?

Again I'm pretty sure I didn't say that. It's pretty clear services in telecoms or railways have improved since privatisation. What will never be clear is where we would be without it, so it's nigh on impossible to make fair comparisons. But when I look at recent major government projects, Olympics, Millennium Dome, Scottish Parliament, NHS IT system, Edinburgh trams, defence procurement etc etc they're so over budget and/or late it's a wonder anyone wants them to run anything. And that's any of the parties.

Which is why the public should be VERY concerned about any insidious attacks on the health service - because most modern governments have form, there.

And how do you propose to maintain current levels of service in the 5th largest employer on Earth with ever increasing technology, drug and treatment costs, and an ageing population?

Tax the rich?

 

[Neil]

1. So you're saying you believe the majority of the electorate would prefer to privatise the BBC? Not buying from that funky bakery.
2. Your example is complete tosh - why is their a requirement for a referendum over Europe? Because a few loud blowhards mither?

Did I say that? No. All I said was that we wouldn't necessarily get the option even if we did.

So if you're not saying that the majority of the electorate wouldn't prefer to privatise the BBC, then what's your argument? You don't like democracy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/24/eu-referendum-poll-uk-withdrawal
70% is a lot of blowhards. I'd go as far as to say it was a majority. And that's the Guardian ffs. But lets not let evidence get in the way.

Oh, you do like democracy - when it suits.

And what's that quote about statistics and lies...

I suspect there's a lot of people in the country who are not exactly happy with the way our country participates in the EU. Well that's one thing - but I'm not inclined to believe most of those people really have a fecking clue about what it would truly mean to do anything different. I suspect there's many complaining, but I'm far from convinced the majority would get us to pull out of Europe.

Not everything is a business and should be run like one.

But the BBC is a business. It competes with other businesses in the marketplace. It sells programmes worldwide. It sells rights to brands, it has a huge commercial arm peddling DVDs, magazines and merchandise with revenues of £1bn+ per year. How the fnck is that not a business?

So you mean it uses some part of the business world to fund it's activities, but still doesn't have a load of shareholders wanting their bit off the top, too?

Sounds like the best of both worlds to me.

Or the worst. What are we if we're not shareholders in the BBC? Except all we do is contribute, there's no dividend.

The country gets a return on the money they have to contribute. True, the return isn't financial - but I suspect the majority believe it's worthwhile.

Shareholders only get a bit off the top because they take risks and invest in the first place, and only then when profits are made. I'm don't see why the BBC principle can't remain but the funding model change to a not for profit type model. I couldn't care less what they do, I just object to being extorted against my will.

But you're not - so quit your whining - you've already said you don't pay a license fee, yet still watch live TV.

I'm not saying there's no good candidates for privatisation. But your mantra that it solves all evils of the public sector is either stunningly naive or hubris of the highest order, or both. I'll repeat - for most things privatised, have the public realised comprehensive benefit? Or have they merely been told they have, because of the mantra that competition will keep the prices competitive?

Again I'm pretty sure I didn't say that. It's pretty clear services in telecoms or railways have improved since privatisation. What will never be clear is where we would be without it, so it's nigh on impossible to make fair comparisons. But when I look at recent major government projects, Olympics, Millennium Dome, Scottish Parliament, NHS IT system, Edinburgh trams, defence procurement etc etc they're so over budget and/or late it's a wonder anyone wants them to run anything. And that's any of the parties.

There's a big difference between government run projects - that are probably largely run like businesses, these days, anyways, and true services being privatised because of politics rather than benefit to society.

Which is why the public should be VERY concerned about any insidious attacks on the health service - because most modern governments have form, there.

And how do you propose to maintain current levels of service in the 5th largest employer on Earth with ever increasing technology, drug and treatment costs, and an ageing population?

Tax the rich?

Well I suspect the rich don't feel anything like the pain of taxation that people lower down in society do.

I think a more equitable taxation solution would help society, rather than the rich just seeing the working masses and their services as cash cows.

As to the health service, I think they have challenges, and I think they can always learn lessons from other healthcare systems - but I'm still convinced that SERVICES like the NHS, police, fire brigade and several others, should still be mostly public sector. I genuinely believe the private sector can't be trusted to run them properly as SERVICES.

 

[technodup]

And what's that quote about statistics and lies...

I suspect there's a lot of people in the country who are not exactly happy with the way our country participates in the EU. Well that's one thing - but I'm not inclined to believe most of those people really have a fecking clue about what it would truly mean to do anything different. I suspect there's many complaining, but I'm far from convinced the majority would get us to pull out of Europe.

And I'm far from convinced you read it because that's not what it says. Just for clarity...

Some 70% of voters want a vote on Britain's EU membership, and by a substantial nine-point margin respondents say they would vote for UK withdrawal.

Forty-nine per cent would vote to get Britain out of Europe, against just 40% who prefer to stay in.

I think a more equitable taxation solution would help society, rather than the rich just seeing the working masses and their services as cash cows.

An equitable tax solution? Like a flat tax? Can't get much more equitable than that imo, but I suspect that's not what you meant.