Complaints Burden on Small TV Channels

Some small TV channels are blitzed by malicious complaints that Ofcom fully investigates. Sometimes these complaints are not upheld, sometimes they are, but either way the channel has a cloud over it for the 6 months it takes Ofcom to decide even the simplest thing, and the channel incurs significant internal and external costs for each complaint.

The complaints in question are widely believed to be malicious, from rival broadcasters seeking commercial advantage. In some cases the complaint is technically correct, but it comes from a rival showing comparable material – they cannot genuinely claim to be offended. Some complaints relate to obscure channels that complainants claim to have been watching at 3am!

At best channels incur unreasonable costs and suffer months of uncertainty, at worst they are fined £30,000 or even £250,000 for "material likely to cause offence" where there has been no actual offence. Broadcasters have gone out of business as a result, others are marginal.

1. Complaints from 1 or 2 people should not be given the same weight as genuine complaints for 20 or 30 independent people.

2. Broadcasters should be able to insist that Ofcom checks the credentials of a complainant, rather than relying on emails from fake addresses.

3. What is the complainants genuine address (this should be verified but need not be disclosed).

4. Does the complainant have links to rivals?

5. Why was the complainant watching a clearly signposted channel with offensive material at 2 or 3am?

Why is this idea important?

Some small TV channels are blitzed by malicious complaints that Ofcom fully investigates. Sometimes these complaints are not upheld, sometimes they are, but either way the channel has a cloud over it for the 6 months it takes Ofcom to decide even the simplest thing, and the channel incurs significant internal and external costs for each complaint.

The complaints in question are widely believed to be malicious, from rival broadcasters seeking commercial advantage. In some cases the complaint is technically correct, but it comes from a rival showing comparable material – they cannot genuinely claim to be offended. Some complaints relate to obscure channels that complainants claim to have been watching at 3am!

At best channels incur unreasonable costs and suffer months of uncertainty, at worst they are fined £30,000 or even £250,000 for "material likely to cause offence" where there has been no actual offence. Broadcasters have gone out of business as a result, others are marginal.

1. Complaints from 1 or 2 people should not be given the same weight as genuine complaints for 20 or 30 independent people.

2. Broadcasters should be able to insist that Ofcom checks the credentials of a complainant, rather than relying on emails from fake addresses.

3. What is the complainants genuine address (this should be verified but need not be disclosed).

4. Does the complainant have links to rivals?

5. Why was the complainant watching a clearly signposted channel with offensive material at 2 or 3am?

Cancelling TV Packages

Make it quick and easy to cancel TV subscriptions. Equality!

Some small operators of TV satellite channels require subscribers to sign up for a minimum of 12 months. Some make cacellation difficult – 14 days written notice must be given for something that can be effected in 5 minutes. Notifications are "lost". When evetually acknowledged, requests to cancel are too late for this month. A viewer who starts cancelling after 12 months often ends up paying for 15.

None of this would be too bad if viewers were getting the package they signed up for, but under one sided contracts, viewers must sign up for 12 months but the broadcaster can drastically vary their content, removing flagship shows that were the main reason for signing up and gave every appearance of being permanent features.

The channels in question do not incur any equipment set up costs, simply the cost of processing a direct debit, usually 5-10 minutes time for an operator in a call centre.

The operators in question have atrack record of laying on attractive flagship shows and luring subscribers in, knowing full well that they cannot sustain the output, and without the restrictive clauses audience churn would be much higher.

Why is this idea important?

Make it quick and easy to cancel TV subscriptions. Equality!

Some small operators of TV satellite channels require subscribers to sign up for a minimum of 12 months. Some make cacellation difficult – 14 days written notice must be given for something that can be effected in 5 minutes. Notifications are "lost". When evetually acknowledged, requests to cancel are too late for this month. A viewer who starts cancelling after 12 months often ends up paying for 15.

None of this would be too bad if viewers were getting the package they signed up for, but under one sided contracts, viewers must sign up for 12 months but the broadcaster can drastically vary their content, removing flagship shows that were the main reason for signing up and gave every appearance of being permanent features.

The channels in question do not incur any equipment set up costs, simply the cost of processing a direct debit, usually 5-10 minutes time for an operator in a call centre.

The operators in question have atrack record of laying on attractive flagship shows and luring subscribers in, knowing full well that they cannot sustain the output, and without the restrictive clauses audience churn would be much higher.

Allow Foreign TV Channels on Sky

Margaret Thatcher saw the value of free speech and passed laws allowing UK citizens to easily watch foreign satellite TV channels. Freedom of speech and access to foreign sources helps democracy abroad. Yet in the UK the previous mixed-provider platform on Astra has been replaced with a system controlled by just one broadcaster, Sky. In theory non-UK channels can operate on the Sky platform, but in reality every channel is UK regulated by Ofcom or tacitly approved by Sky. It's market power makes direct competitors or types of channels Sky disapproves of unable to access the UK market. They can't get a transponder slot. If they do,m they can't get listed on the Sky EPG. If they do the cost is £25,000 or more per year.

This is an insurmountable hurdle for, say, a small French regional channel, that might want to broadcast to ex-patriot French working in Britain. A custom dish set-up is not an option for many people, particularly anyone in temporary accommodation.

The Sky platform has just 2 European channels, both bland state run "Best Of" packages. We should be strengthening our ties, not weakening them.

Not a Government issue? Not a freedom issue? Yes, Mr Moderator, it is. It will take Government action to force Sky (and Virgin, BT, etc) to carry european channels on request and at low cost, without UK regulation. (Dual regulation does not work).

Give the UK people freedom to hear the rest of the world, not just what big business wants us to hear.

Why is this idea important?

Margaret Thatcher saw the value of free speech and passed laws allowing UK citizens to easily watch foreign satellite TV channels. Freedom of speech and access to foreign sources helps democracy abroad. Yet in the UK the previous mixed-provider platform on Astra has been replaced with a system controlled by just one broadcaster, Sky. In theory non-UK channels can operate on the Sky platform, but in reality every channel is UK regulated by Ofcom or tacitly approved by Sky. It's market power makes direct competitors or types of channels Sky disapproves of unable to access the UK market. They can't get a transponder slot. If they do,m they can't get listed on the Sky EPG. If they do the cost is £25,000 or more per year.

This is an insurmountable hurdle for, say, a small French regional channel, that might want to broadcast to ex-patriot French working in Britain. A custom dish set-up is not an option for many people, particularly anyone in temporary accommodation.

The Sky platform has just 2 European channels, both bland state run "Best Of" packages. We should be strengthening our ties, not weakening them.

Not a Government issue? Not a freedom issue? Yes, Mr Moderator, it is. It will take Government action to force Sky (and Virgin, BT, etc) to carry european channels on request and at low cost, without UK regulation. (Dual regulation does not work).

Give the UK people freedom to hear the rest of the world, not just what big business wants us to hear.

Satellite Dishes for Flats

Allow occupants of flats to have satellite dishes fitted by registered dish fitters without requesting permission from landlords. One dish per flat, fixed position or steerable, up to 1.0 metre diameter. At present tenants have to ask permission and it is often refused if the landlord doesn't like the idea or has a shared dish on the roof – this forces the tenant to take the landlords choice, and usually plays into the hands of one large company. There are other satellites and nationalities out there. At best there are delays, prevarication and pointless paperwork.

Why is this idea important?

Allow occupants of flats to have satellite dishes fitted by registered dish fitters without requesting permission from landlords. One dish per flat, fixed position or steerable, up to 1.0 metre diameter. At present tenants have to ask permission and it is often refused if the landlord doesn't like the idea or has a shared dish on the roof – this forces the tenant to take the landlords choice, and usually plays into the hands of one large company. There are other satellites and nationalities out there. At best there are delays, prevarication and pointless paperwork.

Stop government letters which threaten fines

"Respond to this letter or be fined £xxxx.xx amounts of money. Yours faithfully, the State."

These kinds of threats belong in the mafia or other crime syndicates who 'know where you live'.

The government is using the law to literally rip the shirt off peoples backs simply for not replying to a letter which could get lost in the post anyway.

This type of state interference and bullying is a infringement of civil liberties and is a psychological weapon. It has to stop!

Why is this idea important?

"Respond to this letter or be fined £xxxx.xx amounts of money. Yours faithfully, the State."

These kinds of threats belong in the mafia or other crime syndicates who 'know where you live'.

The government is using the law to literally rip the shirt off peoples backs simply for not replying to a letter which could get lost in the post anyway.

This type of state interference and bullying is a infringement of civil liberties and is a psychological weapon. It has to stop!

Collect TV licence with council tax to reduce collection costs

I would like to propose that the law be amended so that the licence is payable by all and is collected by local councils (as happens with Police & Fire services. This would remove an extra tier of tax collectors working for TV licensing whilst not increasing the staff or workload of local councils. 

This proposal keeps away from the debate on how to pay for the quality services of TV, radio and Internet that are provided through the current TV licence by the BBC. S4C, and others and is restricted to the collection mechanism.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to propose that the law be amended so that the licence is payable by all and is collected by local councils (as happens with Police & Fire services. This would remove an extra tier of tax collectors working for TV licensing whilst not increasing the staff or workload of local councils. 

This proposal keeps away from the debate on how to pay for the quality services of TV, radio and Internet that are provided through the current TV licence by the BBC. S4C, and others and is restricted to the collection mechanism.

Ofcom reports

I  believe that the system where one person complains to OFCOM and a report "complaint upheld"! is WRONG.

How much time and money does this cost?

Scrap this Mary Whitehouse hangover – it was OK when we had a few channels but now it is out of date.

We have warnings and pin access on TV channels – if you don't not like a programme switch off.

At OFCOM – It must work something like this: Meetings to analyse complaints,arrange to view programme,view programme – not sure if it offends –  view with Senior Manager. Meeting to agree that an OFCOM rule is breached. Prepare report and run past legal before publication – publish – ITS CRAZY AND IT WASTES A LOT OF MONEY !

 

  

Why is this idea important?

I  believe that the system where one person complains to OFCOM and a report "complaint upheld"! is WRONG.

How much time and money does this cost?

Scrap this Mary Whitehouse hangover – it was OK when we had a few channels but now it is out of date.

We have warnings and pin access on TV channels – if you don't not like a programme switch off.

At OFCOM – It must work something like this: Meetings to analyse complaints,arrange to view programme,view programme – not sure if it offends –  view with Senior Manager. Meeting to agree that an OFCOM rule is breached. Prepare report and run past legal before publication – publish – ITS CRAZY AND IT WASTES A LOT OF MONEY !

 

  

Denationalise the BBC; abolish the TV licence.

The BBC should be denationalised, with shares being offered to the public. The licence fee, a regressive tax that hits the poor the hardest, can then be abolished. Privatisation would also reduce the budget deficit somewhat.

Why is this idea important?

The BBC should be denationalised, with shares being offered to the public. The licence fee, a regressive tax that hits the poor the hardest, can then be abolished. Privatisation would also reduce the budget deficit somewhat.

Let the BBC be the best it can be, for the public who pay for it

 

In the name of commercial fairness the BBC is held back from offering the services it wants too.  These additional services (such as offering more HD content, or creating iPhone Apps) would cost little to implement but would offer a good service for the public.  Various regulatory bodies however, often hold the BBC back.  This is apparently because the new services offered by the BBC would harm its commercial rivals.  In reality however, this probably wouldn’t hold true.  For example, there are few people who would watch a BBC program at the expense of an ITV one, just because it happened to be available on HD or remained on the iPlayer for a few more days.  It would merely improve the viewing experience for the public. 

If there is a mandatory license fee, the BBC should be obligated to offer the best possible service it can to the public.  If that drives up the competition, so much the better.  The commercial competition should not mind the BBC forging ahead with improved broadcasting technologies – taking the risk from first implementation away from them.

Why is this idea important?

 

In the name of commercial fairness the BBC is held back from offering the services it wants too.  These additional services (such as offering more HD content, or creating iPhone Apps) would cost little to implement but would offer a good service for the public.  Various regulatory bodies however, often hold the BBC back.  This is apparently because the new services offered by the BBC would harm its commercial rivals.  In reality however, this probably wouldn’t hold true.  For example, there are few people who would watch a BBC program at the expense of an ITV one, just because it happened to be available on HD or remained on the iPlayer for a few more days.  It would merely improve the viewing experience for the public. 

If there is a mandatory license fee, the BBC should be obligated to offer the best possible service it can to the public.  If that drives up the competition, so much the better.  The commercial competition should not mind the BBC forging ahead with improved broadcasting technologies – taking the risk from first implementation away from them.

Allow Anyone To Set Up A Local TV Station

Allow any one to set up a local TV station.  Impose a low power limit and prevent operators having licences for more than one area, but just make it easier.  Don't force people to categorise their channels. Remove massive bureacratic and operational hurdles – it's all but impossible to operate a TV channel without a legal department. Remove scope for malicious complaints.

OK, impose a few conditions. Convicted criminals, sex shop onwers and people "convicted" of trading offences in civil courts should be required to undergo full "Appropriate Person" checks, and debtors, but let ordinary people set up channels.

Let people sub-lease capacity at different times of day without assuming liability for content.

Make it even easier by making Ofcom provide "TV station in a box" model kits, eg docs, retention of recordings, etc.

And keep local council out of it, there is enough bland well meaning rubbish out there.

Why is this idea important?

Allow any one to set up a local TV station.  Impose a low power limit and prevent operators having licences for more than one area, but just make it easier.  Don't force people to categorise their channels. Remove massive bureacratic and operational hurdles – it's all but impossible to operate a TV channel without a legal department. Remove scope for malicious complaints.

OK, impose a few conditions. Convicted criminals, sex shop onwers and people "convicted" of trading offences in civil courts should be required to undergo full "Appropriate Person" checks, and debtors, but let ordinary people set up channels.

Let people sub-lease capacity at different times of day without assuming liability for content.

Make it even easier by making Ofcom provide "TV station in a box" model kits, eg docs, retention of recordings, etc.

And keep local council out of it, there is enough bland well meaning rubbish out there.

Don’t like the smoking ban? You know where the door is.

Other countries have much more freedom than Britain.

Clearly the government intends to ignore ideas submitted to this site.

So why not offer bursaries so that people can move abroad to enjoy more freedom:

1. Freedom to smoke: other European countries are much more relaxed about smoking.

2. Freedom to breathe: traffic pollution is much less severe in Europe and they allow smoking rooms so you can choose which smoke you want to be exposed to.

3. Freedom from tax: Britain now has the highest overall burden of tax in the western world.

4. Freedom to work: mass immigration and offshoring of jobs are much less prevalent in other countries.

5. Freedom to study: most other European countries offer student grants and waive tuition fees for poorer students.

6. Freedom to recover: Britain has some of the worst figures in Europe for recovery from cancer and other serious diseases.

7. Freedom to personal space: Britain is now the most densely populated country in Europe (supermarkets estimate, from the sale of staple items like bread and milk, that the population of Britain is around 95 million)

8. Freedom to own a home: it's almost impossible to enter the property market in Britain.

9. Freedom of movement: British people must now sign the e-borders register to take a holiday.

10. Freedom of assembly: in Britain is it illegal to dance to repetitive music, play live music unlicensed at a village fete and hold a political protest without permission from the police.

11. Freedom from noise: despite the previous point Britain offers no protection against neighbourhood noise unlike most other European countries.

12. Freedom from violence: Britain has the highest violent crime figures in Europe and most people are afraid to walk around their own communities after dark.

13. Freedom of the Internet: only Britain, China and North Korea will block Websites and imprison people whom contradict the will of the digital oligarchs.

14. Freedom to have a stake: in America one third of the population has two thirds of the wealth. However in Britain, comparable to a tin-pot dictatorship, just 5% of the population has 95% of the wealth.

I could go on but you get the picture.

Why is this idea important?

Other countries have much more freedom than Britain.

Clearly the government intends to ignore ideas submitted to this site.

So why not offer bursaries so that people can move abroad to enjoy more freedom:

1. Freedom to smoke: other European countries are much more relaxed about smoking.

2. Freedom to breathe: traffic pollution is much less severe in Europe and they allow smoking rooms so you can choose which smoke you want to be exposed to.

3. Freedom from tax: Britain now has the highest overall burden of tax in the western world.

4. Freedom to work: mass immigration and offshoring of jobs are much less prevalent in other countries.

5. Freedom to study: most other European countries offer student grants and waive tuition fees for poorer students.

6. Freedom to recover: Britain has some of the worst figures in Europe for recovery from cancer and other serious diseases.

7. Freedom to personal space: Britain is now the most densely populated country in Europe (supermarkets estimate, from the sale of staple items like bread and milk, that the population of Britain is around 95 million)

8. Freedom to own a home: it's almost impossible to enter the property market in Britain.

9. Freedom of movement: British people must now sign the e-borders register to take a holiday.

10. Freedom of assembly: in Britain is it illegal to dance to repetitive music, play live music unlicensed at a village fete and hold a political protest without permission from the police.

11. Freedom from noise: despite the previous point Britain offers no protection against neighbourhood noise unlike most other European countries.

12. Freedom from violence: Britain has the highest violent crime figures in Europe and most people are afraid to walk around their own communities after dark.

13. Freedom of the Internet: only Britain, China and North Korea will block Websites and imprison people whom contradict the will of the digital oligarchs.

14. Freedom to have a stake: in America one third of the population has two thirds of the wealth. However in Britain, comparable to a tin-pot dictatorship, just 5% of the population has 95% of the wealth.

I could go on but you get the picture.

Let tv licence payers elect the BBC heirachy.

At the moment WE pay the fee and THEY(the government) choose the governors and other people they would like to run it.

It would be a simple matter to make the licencepayers preferences known when the reminders are sent out.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment WE pay the fee and THEY(the government) choose the governors and other people they would like to run it.

It would be a simple matter to make the licencepayers preferences known when the reminders are sent out.

Drastically reduce or remove council tax

The introduction of council tax wasnt popular and i think we can all see why..

Every month we have to pay rent/mortgage at inflated prices, gas,electricity,water, phone, broadband, car tax, car insurance, road tax, tv license, and council tax.

the only reason i work is to not go to prison for unpaid bills and even still, i cant afford to live properly because of the ridiculous amounts of tax and forced things we have to pay for.

everything should be pay as you use.

We never get a voice. we never get a say and we are always ignored

tv license is to pay for BBC – if i watch itv or sky (which also costs money) i still have to buy a license tio support a station i dont watch or its a fine. so i have to buy a tv, pay for electric, buy a license, pay for sky and not watch bbc whilst still paying for it.

Bailiffs are another example of being let down by the government, money i have never owed, yet a bailiff turns up and bullys, harrasses and threatens innocent people – ask them if they can prove it, they say no and they dont have to and ruin your life.

council tax – my bins are never collected, i dont use the police or ambulance or fire or the council. if i did, id rather pay as i went (every one call i pay a months equivalent of council tax)

I pay the council and yet, they wont fix the pot holes, they dont clean the streets, they wont fix the lighting, or answer their phones.

Where else have we been ignored? Passports, i paid an inflated price to fund the id card scheme, which is scrapped, yet i bet the passport price doesnt get reduced? or a refund on the difference offered? or a refund to people with id cards?

We live to work to pay people and get nothing in return.

My bank…lloyds tsb..bailed out by tax payers money, i ask for a temporary 100 pound overdraft and i am told no because i am a financial risk?? yet my money – that i have no choice about where it goes – saved them.. helpful banking they promised me, yet refuses me overdraft or if i go 4p over drawn charges me £40 and says they cant stop the charge, which is unfair and the government have done nothing about.

You mighht read these, but nothing of use will ever been done, and we are destined to continue to live to line your pockets and have no life of our own.

Why is this idea important?

The introduction of council tax wasnt popular and i think we can all see why..

Every month we have to pay rent/mortgage at inflated prices, gas,electricity,water, phone, broadband, car tax, car insurance, road tax, tv license, and council tax.

the only reason i work is to not go to prison for unpaid bills and even still, i cant afford to live properly because of the ridiculous amounts of tax and forced things we have to pay for.

everything should be pay as you use.

We never get a voice. we never get a say and we are always ignored

tv license is to pay for BBC – if i watch itv or sky (which also costs money) i still have to buy a license tio support a station i dont watch or its a fine. so i have to buy a tv, pay for electric, buy a license, pay for sky and not watch bbc whilst still paying for it.

Bailiffs are another example of being let down by the government, money i have never owed, yet a bailiff turns up and bullys, harrasses and threatens innocent people – ask them if they can prove it, they say no and they dont have to and ruin your life.

council tax – my bins are never collected, i dont use the police or ambulance or fire or the council. if i did, id rather pay as i went (every one call i pay a months equivalent of council tax)

I pay the council and yet, they wont fix the pot holes, they dont clean the streets, they wont fix the lighting, or answer their phones.

Where else have we been ignored? Passports, i paid an inflated price to fund the id card scheme, which is scrapped, yet i bet the passport price doesnt get reduced? or a refund on the difference offered? or a refund to people with id cards?

We live to work to pay people and get nothing in return.

My bank…lloyds tsb..bailed out by tax payers money, i ask for a temporary 100 pound overdraft and i am told no because i am a financial risk?? yet my money – that i have no choice about where it goes – saved them.. helpful banking they promised me, yet refuses me overdraft or if i go 4p over drawn charges me £40 and says they cant stop the charge, which is unfair and the government have done nothing about.

You mighht read these, but nothing of use will ever been done, and we are destined to continue to live to line your pockets and have no life of our own.

Stop snooping and criminalising people for not having a TV license fee

Television and radio is perhaps the nearest to a universal service amongst households in this country. Yet, rather than have a simple settlement from central funds for the state broadcast channels, we have constructed an elaborate system of collecting license fees from owners of televisions and radios.

This has led to an industry of registering and collecting payments. The simple act of not having a license registered for your address or the simple act of purchasing a new televiisions elicits an aggressive and sceptical response from the collectors of the license fee.


 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Television and radio is perhaps the nearest to a universal service amongst households in this country. Yet, rather than have a simple settlement from central funds for the state broadcast channels, we have constructed an elaborate system of collecting license fees from owners of televisions and radios.

This has led to an industry of registering and collecting payments. The simple act of not having a license registered for your address or the simple act of purchasing a new televiisions elicits an aggressive and sceptical response from the collectors of the license fee.


 

 

 

 

Abolish the law that lets prisoners watch colour TV – allow black & white only

Prisoners have it too easy – they don't deserve colour TV. B&W should be enough for them. And the old B&W TV shows have more suitable moral values for these miscreants.

Why is this idea important?

Prisoners have it too easy – they don't deserve colour TV. B&W should be enough for them. And the old B&W TV shows have more suitable moral values for these miscreants.

Traffic CCTV footage aired live to the public

Channel M (Sky 203) already provide a programme named 'Live Traffic Cameras' each morning (Mon-Fri) which broadcasts the morning traffic around Manchester while enabling viewers to listen to Manchester's main local radio station.

My idea would be to add to this and actually do this for all towns and cities; although it might be easier to do this encrypted over the internet than to try to negotiate more TV channels.

Why is this idea important?

Channel M (Sky 203) already provide a programme named 'Live Traffic Cameras' each morning (Mon-Fri) which broadcasts the morning traffic around Manchester while enabling viewers to listen to Manchester's main local radio station.

My idea would be to add to this and actually do this for all towns and cities; although it might be easier to do this encrypted over the internet than to try to negotiate more TV channels.

Abolist the TV Licence

The complete abolishment of the TV licence as it is just another blackmail tax for the general public which is biased in favour of one company, unnecessary, unnecessarily high in price, unfair and more importatly, it is unwanted.

The license fee is too high for what it provides.  Year on year it increases, but what increase do we as a nation see for our money?  Programmes are the same repeats, why does it cost more to repeat?

They do not make it clear that it is a license to watch or record live TV and people are sent threatening letters sent out with deliberate ambiguity to entice and scare people into buying a license (that a lot of people do not actually need) to avoid ending up in court.

For example, if a documentary is produced one year and then again a year later, the increase in the license fee is disproportionate to what you see on the screen.

If other broadcasters can make money through advertising, why can't the BBC?  If they can't it adds weight to the argument they have grown too big.

In short, the BBC should create a product that people want to pay for, just like other businesses, not rely on bullying people for money – if businesses did that they would be up in court for demanding money by menaces!!

Why is this idea important?

The complete abolishment of the TV licence as it is just another blackmail tax for the general public which is biased in favour of one company, unnecessary, unnecessarily high in price, unfair and more importatly, it is unwanted.

The license fee is too high for what it provides.  Year on year it increases, but what increase do we as a nation see for our money?  Programmes are the same repeats, why does it cost more to repeat?

They do not make it clear that it is a license to watch or record live TV and people are sent threatening letters sent out with deliberate ambiguity to entice and scare people into buying a license (that a lot of people do not actually need) to avoid ending up in court.

For example, if a documentary is produced one year and then again a year later, the increase in the license fee is disproportionate to what you see on the screen.

If other broadcasters can make money through advertising, why can't the BBC?  If they can't it adds weight to the argument they have grown too big.

In short, the BBC should create a product that people want to pay for, just like other businesses, not rely on bullying people for money – if businesses did that they would be up in court for demanding money by menaces!!

Scrap the BBC licence fee

Scrap the licence fee because it is an unnecessary form of tax and it is not good value for money. The organisation has got too big and beyond the scope it was intended. The organisation is very left wing and continues news reporting with a heavy Labour bias contrary to its broadcasting policy. The fee should be scraped or severely reduced. BBC recently overspent £100 million pounds on a build and no one was held to account. If it can waste money on this scale it can afford to reduce the licence fee or seek commercial funding. The taxpayer cannot and should not be expected to fund bias broadcasting and act as a political wing of the Labour Party.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the licence fee because it is an unnecessary form of tax and it is not good value for money. The organisation has got too big and beyond the scope it was intended. The organisation is very left wing and continues news reporting with a heavy Labour bias contrary to its broadcasting policy. The fee should be scraped or severely reduced. BBC recently overspent £100 million pounds on a build and no one was held to account. If it can waste money on this scale it can afford to reduce the licence fee or seek commercial funding. The taxpayer cannot and should not be expected to fund bias broadcasting and act as a political wing of the Labour Party.

R18 TV: Allow adults to see R18 porn on TV with safety controls

It is perfectly legal for adults in the UK to buy sexually explicit straight and gay DVDs and magazines. This is not to everyones taste and controls exist to stop people being offended by R18 films. This strength material is also easily available on the internet and mobile phones. Mediawatch UK, the ANTI porn campaign group estimates that 75% of adult males access internet porn, and that increasing numbers of women do. Clearly it is an important part of many peoples lives. Yet UK TV regulator Ofcom bans R18 explicit sex on TV, even late at night on clearly labelled lockable channels. This is a waste of Ofcom resources (they recently took 3 months to investigate a TV channel where the presenter was wearing the wrong colour knickers: Asian Babes,Bulletin 160). By banning this material Ofcom encourages people to access totally unregulated websites and foreign TV channels that permit acts not legal even in R18 films. By banning R18 explicit sex on TV Ofcom is contributing to marital tension and increasing the number of households that access material that could put children at risk. Since this material is totally legal in the UK if on DVD, in a magazine or on a UK website Ofcom is acting irrationally and against its own principles. Allow R18 strength explicit sex material on late night TV channels that can be locked out now.

Why is this idea important?

It is perfectly legal for adults in the UK to buy sexually explicit straight and gay DVDs and magazines. This is not to everyones taste and controls exist to stop people being offended by R18 films. This strength material is also easily available on the internet and mobile phones. Mediawatch UK, the ANTI porn campaign group estimates that 75% of adult males access internet porn, and that increasing numbers of women do. Clearly it is an important part of many peoples lives. Yet UK TV regulator Ofcom bans R18 explicit sex on TV, even late at night on clearly labelled lockable channels. This is a waste of Ofcom resources (they recently took 3 months to investigate a TV channel where the presenter was wearing the wrong colour knickers: Asian Babes,Bulletin 160). By banning this material Ofcom encourages people to access totally unregulated websites and foreign TV channels that permit acts not legal even in R18 films. By banning R18 explicit sex on TV Ofcom is contributing to marital tension and increasing the number of households that access material that could put children at risk. Since this material is totally legal in the UK if on DVD, in a magazine or on a UK website Ofcom is acting irrationally and against its own principles. Allow R18 strength explicit sex material on late night TV channels that can be locked out now.

OFCOM

Make OFCOM an elected body made up of members of the public.

Reform OFCOM's broadcasting code and bring it into the 21st Century by allowing ALL BBFC classified programme to be shown from U to R18. With BBFC 18 programming restricted to 2000 to 0530 and BBFC R18 programming restricted to 2200 to 0530 with PIN protection.

Why is this idea important?

Make OFCOM an elected body made up of members of the public.

Reform OFCOM's broadcasting code and bring it into the 21st Century by allowing ALL BBFC classified programme to be shown from U to R18. With BBFC 18 programming restricted to 2000 to 0530 and BBFC R18 programming restricted to 2200 to 0530 with PIN protection.