TV Tax in the UK

[Capn_Birdseye]

I would be interested in hearing the views of our American friends on the following:

In the UK everyone who owns a TV set has to pay the government a licence fee of £135 ($270) per year for simply having the set in their home. The fee, (or tax a smany regard it), is then given by the government, (plus even more money!), to the BBC.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,1815173,00.html

You may not watch any BBC channels, but that does not preclude you from paying the fee, in fact if you are caught with a TV that is not licenced you can be fined up to $2,000.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/students.jsp#link2

The government also takes a keen interest in appointsments made within the BBC. At one time a MI5 officer sat in the BBC offices and vetted all staff applicants.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,2140555,00.html

So is it any surprise that the BBC is biased - why bite the hand that feeds you?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

Other TV channels in the UK have to compete in the market place, only the BBC is given £3 Billion ($6 Billion) of British taxpayers money! Is this fair? As the licence is compulsory it is tantamount to an annual tax.

Would people in the US tolerate such a system?

[lofter1]

Tolerate it? Hahahaha ...

Wouldn't even consider it.

The USA gives piddling amounts to Public Broadcasting and other arts subsidies. Just pennies per person. Shameful, really.

What the US supports via the National Endowment for the Arts (http://www.americansforthearts.org/get_involved/advocacy/aad/issue_briefs/2007/advocacy_issuebrief_001.asp):
... the NEA is funded at only $124.4 million under the “continuing resolution” covering FY 2007, the same level at which it was funded in FY 2006 (see chart above). This amounts to just 41 cents per capita, as compared to 69 cents per capita in FY 1992.

The differnce on funding of Public Broadcasting (http://www.freepress.net/publicbroadcasting/=global):

GB spends $83.00 per capita on Public Broadcastng.

US spends $1.70 per capita on Public Broadcasting.

[lofter1]

In the UK everyone who owns a TV set has to pay the government a licence fee of £135 ($270) per year for simply having the set in their home. As the licence is compulsory it is tantamount to an annual tax.

Would people in the US tolerate such a system?

The sytem we have to tolerate over here is the swindling we experience from cable television companies.

My monthly cable TV bill includes $5.67 for "Franchise" and "FCC Regulatory" fees -- which are basically taxes. Plus there are hidden charges in each bill for the "Federal Universal Service Fund" and the "Emergency 911 Surcharge" plus who knows what else little fees which are not even listed.

Not sure the taxes total the $270 / year you mention, but it sure as hell ain't free or cheap.

When I was a kid and the idea of "Pay TV' was first discussed my father swore he'd never pay to view what came across the "Public Airwaves". He lived long enough that he ate those words.

[Capn_Birdseye]

The trouble as I see it is that the BBC, despite its original charter, has ended up as an instrument of government, particularly under Labour, and to cap it all the BBC seems to have taken a leaf out of this corrupt government's book in terms of its standards of behaviour!

The BBC never got off to a good start. Lord Reith, the founding father of the BBC who set the standards for public-service broadcasting, was a hypocrite, an arrogant snob, an intellectual elitist, a serial womaniser and an admirer of Hitler.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=445763&in_page_id=1770

Today, we have a biased corrupt organisation that defrauds the public with phoney pre-fixed phone-ins, tampers with a video tape to make the Queen appear to be walking out on an artistic sitting, when in fact she was walking in, and has false interviews where the interviewer (Alan Yentob), who wasn't actually present is later super-imposed in the video tape in place of the real interviewer!
http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article3030723.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6904516.stm
http://biasedbbc.proboards45.com/index.cgi?board=rant&action=print&thread=1190575832

So British taxpayers are forced to pay what is in effect a "BBC Tax", then they get duped with phoney phone-ins, and even the editorial content is highly suspect - who can trust such an organisation? I can't.
Biased or what?
http://www.labour-watch.com/bbcbias.htm

[lofter1]

It's ^^^ called propoganda :cool:

Which is always something that the entrenched power structure seems to fall back on in order to prop themselves up, no matter the country.

As the world becomes more corporatized and governments follow the corporate model this is what we all have to look forward to: the use of mass media to present the world as they want us to see it -- and imagery to get us to behave in the way that suits their interests.

Got to give the powerful ones some credit: They're proving to be very successful at it. Why, over here in America you'd be hard pressed, judging from how folks are behaving on the streets, to know that we are in the midst of a war where we are emptying our coffers and squandering whatever might be left of our good will. The sun is shining and barely a complaint is heard. Folks in NYC are shopping like there's no tomorrow.

Which there might not be :cool:

[BenL]

In a country of Fox, ABC and CNN, it's quite difficult to regard the BBC as particuarly biased. No reporter can be entirely subjective - even if the organisation is attempting to be as objective as possible, decisions will still be made on what deserves to be reported and who should be interviewed. The BBC - despite some recent upsets - is a great British institution and remains one of the most important and trusted media groups in the world. We'd be mad to give up the license.

[infoshare]

The trouble as I see it is that the BBC, despite its original charter, has ended up as an instrument of government, particularly under Labour, and to cap it all the BBC seems to have taken a leaf out of this corrupt government's book in terms of its standards of behaviour!



This quote taken from the DAiLY MAIL may give you at least a glimmer of hope: but it seems like a classic case of 'letting the lunatics run the asylum' over at the BBC.

Excerpt - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770
One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.
'Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.'

[nick-taylor]

It's ^^^ called propoganda :cool:

Which is always something that the entrenched power structure seems to fall back on in order to prop themselves up, no matter the country.

As the world becomes more corporatized and governments follow the corporate model this is what we all have to look forward to: the use of mass media to present the world as they want us to see it -- and imagery to get us to behave in the way that suits their interests.

Got to give the powerful ones some credit: They're proving to be very successful at it. Why, over here in America you'd be hard pressed, judging from how folks are behaving on the streets, to know that we are in the midst of a war where we are emptying our coffers and squandering whatever might be left of our good will. The sun is shining and barely a complaint is heard. Folks in NYC are shopping like there's no tomorrow.

Which there might not be :cool:Unfortunately the BBC isn't that, in fact it is quite the opposite with the BBC often at odds with the government over many issues...a state controlled media doesn't do that.

Is the BBC 100% non-biased? Unfortunately no, and that is down to the fact that it is run by humans who have differences, what happens though is that the convergence of differing views presents a far more balanced and educated perspective than any broadcaster that I have ever seen. Mistakes are made, but that is part of the parcel when it comes to bringing together a coherent package that takes in a broad collection of perspectives not only for Brits, but the wider world who view the BBC as their only source of free speech.

For some that is too much, in that they expect the BBC to share their view. Yet irony can be found here, in that people complain that the BBC is either to close to the right-wing, too liberal or too socialist....

Back to the water pump for Capn Pugwash I do believe!

[Capn_Birdseye]

Is the BBC 100% non-biased? Unfortunately no, and that is down to the fact that it is run by humans who have differences
No nicky boy it isn't as you're trying to make out, a matter of human differences, that is too simplistic, as well you know. Its far more deep-rooted than that, its about the culture of the organisation and the fact that it is funded, (reluctantly in many cases), by the British taxpayers. Why would the BBC upset the government when it relies on the government for its funding? It has become little more than the mouthpiece for the most corrupt government since WW2.

If you cared to read the links I provided in my previous posting you will find acres of coverage on the instutional bias of the BBC and its corrupt practices, but then nicky boy it seems to me you only believe what you want to believe. Isn't it time you took off the blinkers and stopped being an apologist for this evil government?

[BenL]

I'm afraid you're starting to sound a little bit mad. There may be a slight social liberal bias but if we are to look at recent allegations of bias - anti-Israeli, anti-war (especially see Hutton here) and anti-American - I really don't think any sane person would think our independent BBC is a "mouthpiece" for the government.

[Capn_Birdseye]

BenL I wish I could be as complacent as you in your view on the impartiality, (or more to the point, the lack of it), of the BBC.

I would concede that the word "mouthpiece" may be a tad too strong but the BBC certainly ensures that the governments message comes across at the expense of opposition views. It is not objective in its reporting.

Gordon Brown even made sure that his old crony Sir Micahel Lyons was appointed Chairman!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/06/nlyons06.xml

[nick-taylor]

No nicky boy it isn't as you're trying to make out, a matter of human differences, that is too simplistic, as well you know. Its far more deep-rooted than that, its about the culture of the organisation and the fact that it is funded, (reluctantly in many cases), by the British taxpayers. Why would the BBC upset the government when it relies on the government for its funding? It has become little more than the mouthpiece for the most corrupt government since WW2.

If you cared to read the links I provided in my previous posting you will find acres of coverage on the instutional bias of the BBC and its corrupt practices, but then nicky boy it seems to me you only believe what you want to believe. Isn't it time you took off the blinkers and stopped being an apologist for this evil government?If you are going to be critical, get your facts straight. For a start the BBC is not funded by taxpayers money, in that the government doesn't budget from the Treasury like it does for defence, transport, health, etc... If you had done your research you might actually know that the Licence Fee is completely separate from the tax system, unlike other countries where the state actually allocates taxes to fund the operation of state television. As the following pie chart illustrates, government funding is nowhere to be seen:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/BBC_income_2004_in_GBP_Redvers.png/325px-BBC_income_2004_in_GBP_Redvers.png
Other income = content provided to overseas providers & concert ticket sales

Government does have a say in what the licence fee should be, but it can not take licence fee funds and use them say on the NHS, or vice versa.

As for the BBC Trust, they don't control or dictate content that we receive, and they come from different walks of life from within society to balance out the different ideas.

Yes....most corrupt....again no evidence from credible sources. At least I can agree on one aspect of your posts - the consistent holes in your argument from flawed sources. My only uncertainty is whether the education or health system failed you!

The Daily Mail - a tabloid as a source? Will you be referring to the National Enquirer next? When you come back to me with reliable sources that aren't focused on comments/blogs/forums as evidence then you might garner a response from me.

Evil government....and that is why you are still here?

[Capn_Birdseye]

If you are going to be critical, get your facts straight. For a start the BBC is not funded by taxpayers money
Nicky boy I suggest its you who needs to get your facts straight!
These are the words of the BBC's Director-General himself - perhaps you know something he doesn't?? :)


BBC Director-General Greg Dyke:
"Let me explain. The BBC is a broadcaster which relies neither on advertising nor subscription. It's publicly funded by a compulsory tax which you have to pay if you want to have a television in your house anywhere in the United Kingdom.

If you don't pay you can go to jail. As you can imagine churn is not a big problem for the BBC."
As for the BBC Trust, they don't control or dictate content that we receive, and they come from different walks of life from within society to balance out the different ideas.
Nicky boy, I just love your phrase, "to balance out the different ideas"!
Lets start again, as obviously you seem slow on grasping the point.
The government funds the BBC from taxes it raises from us, the British taxpayers.
According to the Oxford dictionary: "Tax is a complulsory contribution to state revenue levied by the government on personal income & business profits or added to the cost of some products or services."
The government then appoints members to the BBC Trust, the body that oversees the Executive Board.
It's interesting to note that the Board of Trustees includes Patricia Hodgson, a BBC employee who has worked for the organisation for nearly 40 years, 3 former governors of the BBC, and Diane Coyle is a former advisor to the Treasury, a government department! Hardly people representative of normal every-day British society!



Tessa Jowell announces final eight BBC Trust Members
128/06

The appointment of the final eight new BBC Trust members was announced today by the Culture Secretary, Tessa Jowell.
They are Chitra Bharucha (vice-chair), Diane Coyle, Janet Lewis-Jones, Alison Hastings, Patricia Hodgson, Rotha Johnston, David Liddiment and Mehmuda Mian Pritchard.
They will join the chair, Michael Grade, and three former BBC governors – Dermot Gleeson, Jeremy Peat and Richard Tait - on the Trust. So there you have it Nicky boy, the government not only controls the BBC's funding and it also appoints those that oversee its operation - this flawed structure ensures that it can never be independent, after all it would be rather foolish to bite the hand that feeds it wouldn't it! Whenever the government has shown any displeasure with the BBC there has always been the implicit threat that it would "review" (government-speak for "reduce") its funding.

[infoshare]

Whenever the government has shown any displeasure with the BBC there has always been the implicit threat that it would "review" (government-speak for "reduce") its funding.

Shocking news - Not only do they brainwash the public: they make you pay for the soap by way of a compulsory tax. :eek: Orwellian for sure: I did a cut-n-past on the Ministry of Truth

16. Ministry Of Truth - excerpt from "1984" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four)

The Ministry of Truth, Winston's place of work, contained, it was said, three thousand rooms above ground level, and corresponding ramifications below.

The Ministsry of Truth concerned itself with Lies. Party ownership of the print media made it easy to manipulate public opinion, and the film and radio carried the process further.

The primary job of the Ministry of Truth was to supply the citizens of Oceania with newspapers, films, textbooks, telescreen programmes, plays, novels - with every conceivable kind of information, instruction, or entertainment, from a statue to a slogan, from a lyric poem to a biological treatise, and from a child's spelling-book to a Newspeak dictionary.

Winston worked in the RECORDS DEPARTMENT (a single branch of the Ministry of Truth) editing and writing for The Times. He dictated into a machine called a speakwrite. Winston would receive articles or news-items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to alter, or, in Newspeak, rectify. If, for example, the Ministry of Plenty forecast a surplus, and in reality the result was grossly less, Winston's job was to change previous versions so the old version would agree with the new one. This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs - to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance.

When his day's work started, Winston pulled the speakwrite towards him, blew the dust from its mouthpiece, and put on his spectacles. He dialed 'back numbers' on the telescreen and called for the appropriate issues of The Times, which slid out of the pneumatic tube after only a few minutes' delay. The messages he had received referred to articles or news-items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to rectify.

In the walls of the cubicle there were three orifices. To the right of the speakwrite, a small pneumatic tube for written messages; to the left, a larger one for newspapers; and on the side wall, within easy reach of Winston's arm, a large oblong slit protected by a wire grating. This last was for the disposal of waste paper. Similar slits existed in thousands or tens of thousands throughout the building, not only in every room but at short intervals in every corridor. For some reason they were nicknamed memory holes. When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of waste paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building.

As soon as Winston had dealt with each of the messages, he clipped his speakwritten corrections to the appropriate copy of The Times and pushed them into the pneumatic tube. Then, with a movement which was as nearly as possible unconsicious, he crumpled up the original message and any notes that he himself had made, and dropped them into the memory hole to be devoured by the flames.

What happened in the unseen labyrinth to which the tubes led, he did not know in detail, but he did know in general terms. As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any particular number of The Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in its stead.

In the cubicle next to him the little woman with sandy hair toiled day in day out, simply at tracking down and deleting from the Press the names of people who had been vaporized and were therefore considered never to have existed. And this hall, with its fifty workers or thereabouts, was only one-sub-section, a single cell, as it were, in the huge complexity of the Records Department. Beyond, above, below, were other swarms of workers engaged in an unimaginable multitude of jobs.

There were huge printing-shops and their sub editors, their typography experts, and their elaborately equipped studios for the faking of photographs. There was the tele-programmes section with its engineers, its producers and its teams of actors specially chosen for their skill in imitating voices; clerks whose job was simply to draw up lists of books and periodicals which were due for recall; vast repositories where the corrected documents were stored; and the hidden furnaces where the original copies were destroyed.

And somewhere or other, quite anonymous, there were the directing brains who co-ordinated the whole effort and laid down the lines of policy which made it necessary that this fragment of the past should be preserved, that one falsified, and the other rubbed out of existence.

[Capn_Birdseye]

It's deeply worrying just how much Orwell's Ministry of Truth has in common with today's BBC!
Thanks for that excerpt from "1984" Infoshare, a useful reminder of where we're heading!