Saturday, 11 September 2010

Licence to Drivel

Another post, another Farcebook-related rant. Ho hum, you may think.

But this time, the target of my ire is a Farcebook cause entitled "lets get the uk tv licence abolished", and it has annoyed me more than I thought possible. The reason for this is simple - every single person who has posted support to the thread is a complete imbecile. It would take 12 of them to make a halfwit.

Let's take some of the choicest recent comments, shall we?

Ian Morrell writes: "So people like jonathan ross can earn millions to talk utter garbage the BBC are a disgrace"

Jonathan Ross is no longer employed by the BBC. And you're clearly a Daily Wail reader, so you can piss right off anyway.

Alex Glover says: "the price we pay is only for bbc 1 an bbc2, all the ova channels dont cost."

Erm, no. The price you pay is for BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC4, BBC Parliament, BBC News, CBBC, CBeebies, all of the BBC national and local radio stations and all of the content on the BBC website. It also covers the cost of producing content for BBC HD.

Karen Walker (and others) dribbles: "as i am paying to watch tv to sky.. its like i am paying twice!!"

Don't be a tool. Not a penny of the money you pay to Sky (or Virgin, or BT) goes to the BBC. You can receive all of the BBC's channels/radio stations without subscribing to a TV service.

Sarah Page stops scraping her knuckles along the floor for long enough to bash out: "y the fuck do u need to pay to watch 5 channels"

You. Are. An. Idiot. The TV Licence does not pay for the terrestrial TV channels. ITV, Channel 4 and Five are independent (the clue is in the 'I' in 'ITV') and raise their money from advertisements.

Ray Batchelor uses a crayon to scrawl: "i had a count for ch 1,2,3,4,5, and just for one day on 5 chs there were 65 repeats"

Well, you've just wasted your day then, because that fact has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of a TV Licence for the reasons I've just given.

Katiiee Danielle Claire Breen has more vowels in her name than she has IQ, and proves it by hammering at her computer keyboard with her fists until this comes out: "no offence but blind people cant see the tv yet they dont have to pay 4 one and ok i know they can hear it but it still aint the same so wat is good for one is good for us all!!"

I'm sorry, I don't speak chav. Can I just ask, what the fuck are you trying to say?!

Finally, Andy Cornish uses real words and real grammar to write: "its a bbc licence and bbc aint that good anyway, try advertising to your revenue, it works for itv."

That would be the ITV that has been on the verge of bankruptcy for the last two-and-a-half years, and that only makes one good TV programme every 12 months, would it? Yes, I can see how the BBC would want to aspire to that...

...'cause if the BBC went bust, I'd have to resort to reading the rubbish posted on the Interweb by deluded halfwits for my entertainment.


  1. All very amusing, but the licence fee is of course a complete anachronism, and needs to be replaced by either advertising or subscription. Why should people be forced to pay a "TV Tax" even if they never watch the channels it funds?

  2. Whilst the TV and radio channels covered by the TV licence are "free-to-air", there's no way to police a complete abolition of it, but there's no reason why the TV part of it couldn't become subscribers-only when the terrestrial signal is turned off and the BBC can control who can view their content. However, the portions that fund radio and Internet content would have to remain unless the BBC completely changed their funding model. And it would mean the end of iPlayer (or it would also have to become a subscription service).

    At the very least, people joining a Facebook cause to complain about something should at least know *what it is* that they are complaining about!