Comments by "Helen Trope" (@heliotropezzz333) on "Carrie Gracie: 'If they don't report the truth how can we? BBC News" video.

It's not a myth just because you don't like the BBC and think it has a particular political viewpoint that you don't like. Get some rationality and base your comments on facts.
3
Chicot the Jester. How do you know that? I find it hard to explain some of these differences http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42872377. One woman was even told by the BBC "the BBC does not do equal pay". Well that's against the law. If the BBC was confident that they could justify their pay differences, how is it that they are now moving to rectify some of these differences since the oxygen of publicity was given to them. PWC did a report saying gender wasn't the reasons for the pay gap but you can't trust such accountancy firms to tell the truth. Many collapsing firms such as Carillion were given a clean bill of health by accountancy firms in spite of profits warnings (14 profit warnings in the case of Carillion) and in spite of them having raided the pension funds of employees.
2
Chicot the Jester. That video you linked is not relevant to the facts of the BBC. That video is about America and is more general in nature. The question here is specifically the way the BBC operates and pays its staff and whether it complies with UK law.
2
They do the best programmes because of licence fees. I'd rather that than they drop down in quality level because they have to compete for the dumbest audiences and fill their programmes with adverts.
1
blazednlovinit. You don't have to have a TV or watch BBC iplayer (many people don't these days) then you would not need to pay a TV licence. You can get your news online and your films from netflix. I think the BBC keeps the standards of other TV channels up as they have to compete. Also it's good to have a national channel that connects everyone rather than TV all being in the hands of private companies that can go bust at any time. A lot of private companies are in the control of rich men who have an agenda and will be very selective about what they show and are not bothered about showing "fake news" when it suits them or exerting censorship of the news. It's good to have a channel that's not subject to those pressures and has to abide by a charter requiring it to be fair and balanced whatever people think about it. Also it sells a lot abroad and keeps Britain's profile and reputation high in the world and can be a great influence for good. For instance a worldwide campaign to reduce plastic wrappings and containers has had a high profile and some political success following a BBC nature programme by David Attenborough where the effects of plastic on sealife was seen, though that was not the purpose of the programme.
1
I dunno. It's the want want want, me, me, me society now. So you want to risk the sink in quality of TV? Well some things are for the good of society as a whole. TV needs to cater to the intellectual and educational, and high quality reliable news needs of society was well as entertainment, but as some of those things have smaller audiences, than say, the porn channels, you won't find private sector companies providing those services, and if it's only to be paid for by a smaller pool of people, the poorer in society won't be able to afford it. At least this way the costs are shared out.
1
blazednlovinit. Well YOU may not care but you are not the whole of the nation. You may not care about some of the stuff taxes are used to pay for but taxes aren't optional either.
1
blazenlovinit. There are things that people generally would not choose to pay for, given a choice, but all governments have decided that it's for the good of society that we have those things. For instance road taxes. Who would volunteer to pay them if they weren't compulsory. Actually I don't drive. I never have driven and I don't have a car but yet a proportion of my taxes goes to creating and maintaining roads. I accept that though. I don't continually moan about it. Rupert Murdoch's agenda is to undermine the BBC so he can dominate the news agenda without much contradiction and if we relied on such people for news we'd get what Fox TV provides in the USA some of which is unverified and absolute nonsense. There's no concern about whether it's true or not. If it fits the agenda they pump it out and being fed false news can lead to things like war as people get more and more incensed about what they are being told. It helps the wealthy media owners to divide people and have them at each others throats so people don't unite to challenge some of these wealthy owners agendas.
1
blazednlovinit. I know you don't give a crap because you only see the individual perspective. You are wrong about roads too. You see you haven't been watching BBC news and have probably been watching crap TV instead. Here is the true position. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=does+council+tax+go+towards+road+repairs%3F&oq=does+council+tax+go+towards+road+repairs%3F&aqs=chrome..69i57.19965j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8. Read the first sentence of the first item. We need the BBC so every voter does not end up as ignorant as you.
1
blazednloviit. MPs say they are not there just as robots to do the public's bidding. They have to look at the costs and benefits of anything and make reasoned judgements too. If the government did just what people wanted, there would be chaos because there would be no one taking a co-ordinated overview of the impact of lots of individual wants, which might have conflicting outcomes. Many people would push for things just because they can see what's in it for them (like you) but often in ignorance of the facts or what other consequences may result.
1
blazednlovinit.To answer your comments: If you don't watch TV then surely you don't need a TV licence, so you don't pay anything to the BBC unless you watch via iplayer. You were ignorant because you said my taxes wouldn't go towards roads when the facts are that they do. Parliamentary democracy does not work the way you think it should. It never has and never will. In fact no democracy works like that or ever has. It's not practical for it to, for reason already mentioned, but a government does need to be broadly in line with the views of the majority otherwise it won't get elected. However when you vote, it's on a package of the more important policies outlined in the parties' mandates. If you agree with the ideology of the party you vote for, you gamble that it will generally take you in the direction you want to go on any other policies also, but that's as far as you can determine it. God doesn't exist so he can't give powers to anyone. That's just an old justification given by people in power.
1
blazednlovinit. Here's the info on who needs to buy a TV licence ...just in case you don't really need one http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one I can access BBC news without going through iplayer although iplayer appears as an option on the BBC news page when I get there.
1
blazednloviit. But if you watch TV online from another channel (not BBC) and you are not watching it live but only as a recording, but it's not been recorded by you, it's from a recording stored by the provider, that wouldn't seem to me to come within the scope of when you need to have a licence. At least it doesn't seem worded to cover that. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16 Perhaps they mean that if you use ITV Hub for instance, you can't be stopped from watching live ITV programmes, so must pay the licence, but if ITV could separate their access point for live programmes from their access point for the programmes they have recorded, people would not need to pay a licence fee. Do you see what I mean? If that's the case, some of these independent channels could do something to bring watching their recorded programmes outside of the scope of the TV licence fee.
1