@@Abcdefg-xl8te Not really. If you know of Father (senior), AND Frank Thring(Junior).there ARE(in the Present) 2 Frank Thrings. There ARE 2 Different frank Thrings, both completely different, and both fantastic.
The licence was to fund the ABC but people were objecting on the grounds that they claimed that they only watched commercial stations. The Whitlam Government abolished the licences because they believed that all people should have access to non partisan media in a Western democracy. Ironic that today most of us pay for entertainment content because the free to air channels have a plethora of crap eg reality shows.
Yes, it's past time to reconsider how ABC should be funded because the same thing applies today: many people don't avail themselves of ABC services & see no reason why it should be funded from taxpayers' money.
Yes it was abolished by the Whitlam Gov but Governments still need the revenue so Governments just increase a current tax or create a new revenue source.
Ironically, with the notable exception of the ABC and SBS, who are still celebrated for High quality journalism like 4 Corners, Foreign Correspondent and Media Watch, and home-grown shows such as The Newsreader, Total Control and Rake.
"Good chap was even in mad max movie australian icon "
The marvellous Frank Thring.
No, Frank Thring Junior. His father, also Frank Thring, preceded him.
@@MMM-dq9jj14up semantics.
@@Abcdefg-xl8te Not really. If you know of Father (senior), AND Frank Thring(Junior).there ARE(in the Present) 2 Frank Thrings. There ARE 2 Different frank Thrings, both completely different, and both fantastic.
@@MMM-dq9jj14up given no reference to his father in the article I didn't see the point to making a note of snr/jnr.
The licence was to fund the ABC but people were objecting on the grounds that they claimed that they only watched commercial stations. The Whitlam Government abolished the licences because they believed that all people should have access to non partisan media in a Western democracy. Ironic that today most of us pay for entertainment content because the free to air channels have a plethora of crap eg reality shows.
Yes, it's past time to reconsider how ABC should be funded because the same thing applies today: many people don't avail themselves of ABC services & see no reason why it should be funded from taxpayers' money.
Yes it was abolished by the Whitlam Gov but Governments still need the revenue so Governments just increase a current tax or create a new revenue source.
@@trevormather9298 Or they can cut expenditure & allow people who wish to use something pay a subscription for it.
Ironically, with the notable exception of the ABC and SBS, who are still celebrated for High quality journalism like 4 Corners, Foreign Correspondent and Media Watch, and home-grown shows such as The Newsreader, Total Control and Rake.
@@NewhamMatt Which few people watch. If it's 'celebrated' surely people will pay a subscription to see it as they do with Netflix et al.
Sammy J bought me here!
Hey, 'Baxter Baxter, ya do need to get that stutter fixed.
TV licences?
Imagine living in a country that has those in the 21st century.
There's no TV licensing in Australia
There was in 1970 when this ad came out.
BBC