Whilst I have always been a stout defender of the BBC licence fee....

But , people who don't want them won't watch them and if people are as interested in them as you think (I watch them btw) surely they will pay. Can't say I've endured any **** this Christmas what I've watched I've enjoyed if there wasn't anything on I wanted to watch I turned it off and read a book, played some games, went for a walk or did other stuff

 

Fairplay if you enjoyed em I personally think its been **** but if I'd paid anything above licence fee I'd have felt robbed.

 

If what was Mandatory?...Act like whats voluntary?..Sorry JD, maybe I'm being a bit dim but I don't understand Your post.

 

I'm not sure why people are so protective over the BBC - yes we should have an independent publicly funded broadcaster but given how the world has changed in terms of the many alternative ways to get content to watch then the BBC simply should not exist in it's current form.

People go on about how 'high quality' the programming is - is it really? If you take away the growing number of repeats, you've got the terrible daytime stuff, the One Show, Eastenders and occasionally some cheaply thrown together 'factual' programmes which generally just use a load of stock video anyway.

It's been a very long time since the BBC produced properly absorbing documentary series', they wheel Attenborough out every couple of years to narrate on an increasingly inane nature documentary, and if they realise they haven't already shown the same Brian Cox space documentary five times they'll get him to watch some more old Carl Sagan stuff and get him to dumb that down even more.

On one of the rare occasions I had 5 Live on in the car a while back they were talking about the further budget reductions to BBC Sport, they let slip that this was because people aren't paying the TV license, the so-called 'evaders'. They'd never tell you the percentage of households that don't pay the license, but it must be very high. Of course, a Freedom of Information request should surely make them reveal this but somehow they seem to be allowed to keep it a secret.

The BBC push the fact that the license fee hasn't gone up for several years - yet I wonder how many new homes have been built in the last five years? Must be a few hundred thousand at least, presumably the majority of these will be paying the license fee.

It's also concerning that they will pay an obscene amount for a Premier League HIGHLIGHTS show at the expense of showing other popular sports live. I know it's not necessarily their fault that the cost goes up, but surely there comes a time when they have to stop bidding and let a commercial broadcaster like ITV take it.

Scrap the license fee, sell off most of the BBC's assets then allow independent companies to bid for the public broadcaster contract which is renewed every 5 years or so (a bit like the railways) - in that way, if certain obligations aren't being met or the quality of programming drops then there's an opportunity for things to change. You could fund this through taxation, maybe £15 a year for every taxpayer (so obviously this will be a bit more for most households), it removes the Capita element where millions of pounds are wasting harassing people who may not even need a license.

Without mass refusal to pay then there is little chance anything will change although maybe we are slowly reaching that tipping point.

 

You've hit the nail on the head there.

Demanding payment, in threatening language, for a service I don't use, hardly causes me to wish that they continue to exist.

I don't get letters from the local butcher demanding money for meat I haven't eaten. The BBC and their enforcers can **** right off. They'll never, ever get a single penny. If that means no TV, ever, so be it. I'll read a book, and the Badgering Barstewards Corporation can wither and die for all I care.

 

They don't what?

 

What you said. That pundits/'millionaires lifestyle' generalisation thing. The BBC pretty much across the board pay far less than the commercial sector, which includes the on-screen 'talent'. Oh sure, they're all paid far too much in comparison to ordinary folk who graft all week, but t'was ever thus. See also sportsmen, actors, pop stars, etc... I'm quite sure they'll not go without, but to isolate the BBC for paying too much to their 'talent' is missing the boat, really - they offer far below the going rate paid by rival broadcasters.

 

There's enough articles about it. From various political angles.

Beebs a ****ing joke

 

No, I'm telling you. You are wrong.

 

I said they could afford more if they didn't pay for pundits to live a millionaires life? I never even suggested they pay more than sky or such like. It is FACT that they have paid millions and millions to motd pundits.

 

Okay thanks.

 

You actually said they could afford it. It being F1. Therefore if they didn't pay pundits on MOTD they could afford F1. Bonkers.

 

Go on. Show me where in the annual report where I am wrong.

 

Don't try and argue with Mickee on points of the BBC ( or the point of the BBC ) he's an indoctrinated lifer. He invented the use of the offside flag onscreen graphics and admits to "having **** more football" ( at the license payers expense ) than the rest of us!

 

Whether people in general at the BBC are getting paid too much or not, you have to wonder where FIVE BILLION quid a year goes. If you say a billion goes on news, then where does the rest go? Certainly doesn't go on original programming.

 

So Sherlock, Dickensian, Happy Valley, War & Peace, Luther, And Then There Were None etc etc bloody etc cost nothing to make, yeah?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No idea what you've written , Star****er, as you've been on my ignore list for some time. The usual, obsessive ***** no doubt, you creepy ****.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Must admit I enjoyed Luther, but 6 episodes every 2 years surely doesn't cost that much in the grand scheme. Not seen War & Peace or Dickensian, Sherlock and Happy Valley aren't my cup of tea (not going to say they aren't other people's), but if we're talking about drama then ITV have to win the award for the last couple of years, in terms of comedy then I'd say Channel 4 have by far the best stuff.

I know you work for them mate but I'm just saying the BBC values itself far more than the general public does these days, I'm sure if they had a budget of a billion quid instead of 5 billion the general public would not be missing anything as any holes are already plugged by commercial broadcasters.

 

Don't need an annual report. Staffing levels have been massively reduced, and that's actual real world fact, not what the Mail tells you to think. The F1 was handed back as BBC Sport has had to make £35m savings in the last round of cuts and that, along with the golf and the 6-Nations share with ITV, takes care of much of that. Sport's share of the cuts in the budget as a result of the Govt making them pay for the free licences for over 75s is another £150m, which has to be found from somewhere else. Death by a thousand cuts - you'll probably get what you wished for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

A fair, well constructed reply, but the key thing there is the cup of tea. The Beeb can't be all things to all men, but has to try and provide something for everybody.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk