Should the tv licence contained by the UK be abolish?

I think the UK tv licence should be scrapped for these reason:

I think public funding would be a much fairer method of providing revenue for government-owned radio and television broadcasters because at the moment almost everybody at some point in a year encounters tube and radio services (whether diliberately or accidentally and whether they enjoy them or not!).

the expense of administrating and enforcing the tv licence

those that are prosecuted for licence evasion tend to be the poorer member of society

there are alternative forms of home entertainment that are licence free and just as entertaining, such as video or the internet.
Answers:
I don't think it will ever be scrapped, most countries contained by Europe have tv licensing
The licence fee is merely a form of ring-fenced (hypothecated) taxation, compensated by those who have a TV. Not unlike road tax (which is not hypothecated).

Given the average costs of a TV is several hundred pounds, and that the biggest and most expensive TV's seem to be poorer households, I can't imagine anyone with a TV struggles to buy a TV licence.
They don't seem to be to struggle to pay for Sky

Of course if you only scrutinize DVD or the internet, you pay no licence fee but the annual DVD cost is superior.

The alternative is advertising revenue funded, and I'm happy to money to forgo adverts.
As the BBc is publicly funded, it is held to a higher standard than commercial stations and rightly so.
if nearby is a finer broadcaster in the world I'd like to see it. The BBC website alone is almost worth the licence levy.
No, a TV set is a luxury. If you don't want to pay the licence levy, don't buy a TV.

The BBC should be broken up and the more profitable parts sold off. What is left of it should swot up how to stand on its own feet without taxpayer funding resembling the rest of the media/entertainment business
The TV licence is, within effect, a tax, so the BBC is publicly funded. In addition it get a grant from government. Because, if you enjoy the internet, you are capable of receiving BBC TV and radio programs, the license regulations have been extended to cover that milieu as well.
Of course it should be scrapped and those who say no and a bunch of insensitive and arrogant people who have newly come to expect their TV to be subsidised by everyone else.

At the end of the day if the BBC is as upright as the BBC posse say then it would hold no trouble with a voluntary subscription system. Source(s): http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/
Yes the sooner the better ,the programmes are trash . !
No it shouldn't but it probably will be.

Then our television will have like peas in a pod amount of quality as our continental neighbours - endless American import constantly interrupted by trashy adverts and with the atypical domestic program made up of cheap gossipy tabloid sh*te.
Channel Five is the model for the future.
On the plus side, most intelligent people will find themselves getting out more.
i couldn't agree more. If you be to run for office ,i'd vote for you. I think the activity should be played fairly. IE: I never watch BBC, but within order to get Sky, I not just have to pay for sky, but retribution for the BBC too, a TV company that i do not want to use. I cant see how it is legal to force me to pay for something I do not want....but consequently just look at the state of our corrupt legal system that allows Tony Blaire and topical labour to tell wilful and calculated lies in order to sanction their wholesale slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and helpless little children contained by Iraq. Any legal system that stands as corrupt as that can be bought like a cheep seafront whore for the rich and powerfull to do as they please near. In this filthy parasites paradise call Britain It doesn't surprise me that the legal system can be bought and manipulated into bullying individuals into buying a product they do not want, using the threat of fines and imprisonment for non compliance. What does surprise me is that the European court of human rights see it as fair?.....So much for the protection of the EU.


Related Questions: