// Index
TV Licencing
Now, I know I have in the past whinged about the ineptitude of the TV licensing authority, but I do strongly support the fee in principle.
Recently, Noel Edmonds announced that he hasn’t paid for his TV licence in a while (a statement which may actually not be true).
Personally I think such actions are the actions of an utter cock (because as far as I’m concerned he is) but I’m all for him doing so as long as legislation is enacted that means that people who don’t pay their licence are not allowed to appear in any broadcast media in the country. It’s a win-win situation that way.
The trouble is, though, that the news has suddenly opened up a debate about licensing again and it’s all so tedious. There’s a lot of crap about, I know. But as far as I’m concerned the following are worth ?Ǭ£140 of anyone’s money so I’m happy to pay:
- QI. It’s the best programme ever. End of story.
- Doctor Who. It’s the second best, and it keeps a number of acquaintances and an ex employed.
- The Sarah Jane Adventures. Because children need good shows too.
- The BBC News. Not perfect, but still a damn sight better than 90% of its rivals. (I mean… have you seen how shit Sky News is?)
Plus… if there’s one compelling argument in favour of the BBC being publicly funded it’s this: ITV. And, more to the point, a quick comparison of Miss Marple and Marple really does make it crystal clear.
We need this tax, people. It may be an evil, possibly – aren’t all taxes? – but it is a necessary one since it keeps one organisation in a position to save the souls of millions of TV viewers who don’t even know they need saving.
God bless you BBC.
Posted on September 21, 2008 | Filed Under Film, TV, Theatre, Musings
Comments
Response left by Pandemonia on September 29th, 2008
Incidentally, feel free to comment if you have an opposing view. I’m all for debate. However, cheap point scoring is not debate. I’ve had to delete a couple of posts in this vein.
Blunt attacks on the shows I enjoy aren’t, as far as I’m concerned, debate. Feel free to disagree and argue otherwise, but an attack just makes you look like a cunt.
And reference to Jonathan Ross’ salary is banned. Yes, I agree its a criminal sum, but its usefulness as an argument has been invalidated through mindless repetition and overuse. (And since apparently Mark Thompson of the BBC doesn’t think he’s worth that much either it’s not much of an point to score against them really now, is it?)
Response left by Rob on November 18th, 2008
Got something to say?
I heartily agree. I do think that it might be more effectively taxed through income rather than as a flat rate so as to provide a more graduated cost to those with low or limited incomes. On the downside it would remove the transparency of the charge (not that it?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s that transparent anyway ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú money does not only go to the BBC. Channel 4 gets some too I believe).
The real problem is deregulation which allows women in knickers to fill channels a) very cheaply and b) with reasonable viewing figures. I mean, let?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s go the whole hog and fill museums with porn ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú it?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s what the public want to see!
Or is that not the best argument? A line from the second best programme is ?¢‚Ǩ?ìGive a monkey control over its environment and it?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ll fill the world with bananas!?¢‚Ǩ¬ù