Refuse to pay your TV licence fee - UK Agriculture Fight back

Dman2

Member
Location
Durham, UK
But a lot of people making comments here do get a lot from the taxpayer. Good for you then it's great that you can exist without the taxpayers help. However it doesn't alter what i believe which is that all countries need a state media agency that is independent of both government and vested interests
No
What a lot of people get here is money to keep the cost of food production down for the housewife
If we were to sell our produce at true cost of production without subsidies the price of food would have to rise
 

Lowland1

Member
Mixed Farmer
No
What a lot of people get here is money to keep the cost of food production down for the housewife
If we were to sell our produce at true cost of production without subsidies the price of food would have to rise
For whatever reason it's given it comes from the taxpayer. I don't want to get into an argument on the validity of subsidies but my point is some farmers object to the way the BBC handles the money it recieves from the license payers and some people will object to funding farmers with their tax money.
 

Northdowns Martin

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Snodland kent
Personally think BBC is excellent value for money when you consider what you get, advertising free tv and radio stations covering an entire range of genres. Full coverage of Summer and winter Olympic games, Wimbledon, World and European football finals and that’s just some on the sport. Yes there is some rubbish but they need to cater for all. My annoyance is the amount they pay to certain presenters. There should equal pay and a salary cap.
 

Highland Mule

Member
Livestock Farmer
No
What a lot of people get here is money to keep the cost of food production down for the housewife
If we were to sell our produce at true cost of production without subsidies the price of food would have to rise

Food is a mass commodity and the price of commodities is decided according to supply and demand. Nothing that you get paid will help to keep the price down, apart from you by adding a trivially small amount to the supply side of the equation.

If you were to try and sell your commodity food for more than the price as decided by supply and demand (ie what you call the true cost of production), then you would fail. You could ask more than the price you’re offered, but unless you were selling something with a market differentiation, you wouldn’t succeed.

I’m sorry to say, but the removal of subsidy wouldn’t cause food prices to rise as plenty suppliers (your competitors) would still manage to supply at current price.
 

lloyd

Member
Location
Herefordshire
Food is a mass commodity and the price of commodities is decided according to supply and demand. Nothing that you get paid will help to keep the price down, apart from you by adding a trivially small amount to the supply side of the equation.

If you were to try and sell your commodity food for more than the price as decided by supply and demand (ie what you call the true cost of production), then you would fail. You could ask more than the price you’re offered, but unless you were selling something with a market differentiation, you wouldn’t succeed.

I’m sorry to say, but the removal of subsidy wouldn’t cause food prices to rise as plenty suppliers (your competitors) would still manage to supply at current price.

You're not mentioning that a large amount of world suppliers of
agricultural commodities are subsidised.
If you go on Agtalk (American ff) they've been talking about
government handouts they are going to receive.
Take the global subsidies out of the system and food would most definitely
rise in price.
 

JP1

Member
Livestock Farmer
Personally think BBC is excellent value for money when you consider what you get, advertising free tv and radio stations covering an entire range of genres. Full coverage of Summer and winter Olympic games, Wimbledon, World and European football finals and that’s just some on the sport. Yes there is some rubbish but they need to cater for all. My annoyance is the amount they pay to certain presenters. There should equal pay and a salary cap.
Agreed. Planet Earth and other Attenborough programmes almost worth the fee alone. Never been to another country and really rated their TV
 

Highland Mule

Member
Livestock Farmer
You're not mentioning that a large amount of world suppliers of
agricultural commodities are subsidised.
If you go on Agtalk (American ff) they've been talking about
government handouts they are going to receive.
Take the global subsidies out of the system and food would most definitely
rise in price.

Perhaps, but only if supply reduces as a result - would US farmers suddenly stop producing food, or would they try running faster to stay still and produce even more (hence depressing the price further)? For sure they wouldn’t just leave the asset doing nothing. Besides, that doesn’t matter as Donald ain’t gonna manage to make that change!
 

lloyd

Member
Location
Herefordshire
Agreed. Planet Earth and other Attenborough programmes almost worth the fee alone. Never been to another country and really rated their TV

Does Sir David attack air travel as much as agriculture in his climate beliefs?
What would be the carbon footprints off one of his programmes?
 
Last edited:

JP1

Member
Livestock Farmer
Does Sir David attack air travel as much as agriculture in his climate beliefs?
What would be the carbon footprints on his programmes?
He does . Perhaps a bit too gentlemanly for "attack"

I'd sooner know the polar bears are there and being filmed by his crew than 10,000s of visitors go look-see themselves. It's Packham with the wildlife long distance travel co
 

lloyd

Member
Location
Herefordshire
Perhaps, but only if supply reduces as a result - would US farmers suddenly stop producing food, or would they try running faster to stay still and produce even more (hence depressing the price further)? For sure they wouldn’t just leave the asset doing nothing. Besides, that doesn’t matter as Donald ain’t gonna manage to make that change!

Yes they probably would reduce production.
They have to try and plant something to claim 'PP'even
if it's not viable.
It basically helps farmers have an income and stay in business .
Without it alot of areas would be too risky to produce certain
crops.
The world grain price is still mostly set by the Americans through
their USDA reports, so if acreage was taken out global grain markets
would most likely rise.
Our wheat price is one of the lowest in the world at the moment
which has benefitted pigs and poultry immensely but not the
arable grain farmer.
 
Last edited:
Location
Suffolk
When we moved to our smallholding, lock-stock & all, we took a family vote re keeping or disposing of the dreaded TV. The children at that time were 12 & 14 years old respectively.
Needless to say We haven't had a TV since. We have had to sign the BBC disclaimer else the 'heavies' will visit and kick our doors down.......The wording is really quite threatening.

None of us regret this decision in any way. We just do other things with our time, reading for one, conversations and sometimes going on TFF!

I do look at the BBC news but there is definately a bias and IMO we really focus on what is happening in the USA way too much. There wasn't even a mention of the 'troubles' in France between the Gendamerie and the Pompiers!

SS
 

lloyd

Member
Location
Herefordshire
He does . Perhaps a bit too gentlemanly for "attack"

I'd sooner know the polar bears are there and being filmed by his crew than 10,000s of visitors go look-see themselves. It's Packham with the wildlife long distance travel co

Perhaps when globally important spokespeople say to
cut down on red meat consumption they should be careful
not to treat all areas of the World the same.
How can you compare slash and burn in Brazil to lamb grazing
on pasture in the UK?
 
Last edited:
I presume you're not paying a UK TV licence either.
For a start why a non UK citizen pay a UK TV licence, and no we got rid of TV licences here 25-30 years ago.
State tv broadcaster here pretty much has to pay it's own way by commercial revenue rather than extorting money.
That said there would be no issue paying a tv licence if the broadcaster was impartial and balanced, sadly something the BBC has epically failed at over the last 15-25 years,apparently.
 

Steevo

Member
Location
Gloucestershire
Personally think BBC is excellent value for money when you consider what you get, advertising free tv and radio stations covering an entire range of genres. Full coverage of Summer and winter Olympic games, Wimbledon, World and European football finals and that’s just some on the sport. Yes there is some rubbish but they need to cater for all. My annoyance is the amount they pay to certain presenters. There should equal pay and a salary cap.

BBC comedy has certainly gone down the drain.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.5%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 65 34.9%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.1%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 6 3.2%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,287
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top