Cable Forum
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   'Austerity' at the BBC (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33691325)

martyh 28-12-2012 17:38
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escapee (Post 35517178)
That is not correct:

You can as you put it 'rip out the receiver in your tv', but this would not be enough for TVL because you could of course use a Freesat box etc and use the video output to the TV. This argument of removing the tuner was a very old one and invalid many years ago with the introduction of the video recorder with it's own built in UHF tuner.

Also TV can be streamed live over the internet without needing a TV card, so with your interpretation of the rules would mean that anyone with a computer and an internet connection would need a TV licence.
I give up ,you are obviously just arguing for arguings sake .Of course you can use the dvd or vhs or freestat ,they count as a device capable of recieving live transmission in their own right therefore requiring a licence even if you don't own a tv with which to watch the transmissions.I really don't know what is so hard about understanding this simple piece of legislation .

Escapee 28-12-2012 18:30
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35517183)
I give up ,you are obviously just arguing for arguings sake .Of course you can use the dvd or vhs or freestat ,they count as a device capable of recieving live transmission in their own right therefore requiring a licence even if you don't own a tv with which to watch the transmissions.I really don't know what is so hard about understanding this simple piece of legislation .
And I thought it was you arguing for the sake of it, we seem to have gone a complete circle.

All I was trying to point out was that what is said in section 363 and what TVL say is confusing, and in the case of TVL they want people who are unsure to buy a licence if they need it or not.

TVL are just like any door to door salesman, they want a sale and care little if you need their product or not. The difference with TVL is that they resort to harassment and threats if you do not wish to use their product and decline to purchase it.

martyh 28-12-2012 18:36
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escapee (Post 35517205)

All I was trying to point out was that what is said in section 363 and what TVL say is confusing,
.
Only to you apparently ,they say exactly the same thing just different words

Escapee 28-12-2012 18:39
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35517207)
Only to you apparently ,they say exactly the same thing just different words
I give up now:confused:

Chris 28-12-2012 19:20
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
The TV licence permits use of equipment to receive live TV, not ownership of that equipment. It doesnt matter how many TVs, Freesat boxes or VHS machines you own, if you don't use them to receive live TV, you don't need a licence. No need to rip any tuners out of anything.

It is in TVL's interest to muddy the waters because they are an agent that gets commission on licence sales so they want every household to have one, whether it's needed or not. Also, to be fair to them (not that they deserve it), almost every household in the UK does watch live telly, so a significant proportion of the unlicensed addresses in the country almost certainly *do* need a licence and the door-to-door enforcers salesmen agents have met every chav and scutter and heard all their lame excuses.

Jimmy-J 28-12-2012 19:35
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
So telling the TVL that you don't need a licence would put a stop to the threatening letters and the enforcement officers knocking at the door? Nah...

Sirius 28-12-2012 19:57
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35517237)
So telling the TVL that you don't need a licence would put a stop to the threatening letters and the enforcement officers knocking at the door? Nah...
Nah there just like Jehovah’s Witnesses they see it as a challenge to **** you off every Saturday morning by knocking at you door to convert you.

Chris 28-12-2012 20:16
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35517237)
So telling the TVL that you don't need a licence would put a stop to the threatening letters and the enforcement officers knocking at the door? Nah...
"Nah" is correct, for the reasons above. They get commission, so they want to sell you a licence. Add to that the fact that many - probably most - people who say they don't need one are lying, and the mail-bomb/doorstep strategy isn't so unreasonable. Highly annoying for all those honest people who don't watch any live TV at all and so don't need a licence, but hey, what can you do with all the lying chavs who say they don't need one when they do. They're ruining it for everyone else.

On their website they say you can write to them to declare you don't need a licence and they might make a quick visit "just to confirm" - I'd be curious to hear if anyone has gone down that route and got TVL to agree in writing that they don't need a licence.

Escapee 28-12-2012 20:56
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35517260)
"Nah" is correct, for the reasons above. They get commission, so they want to sell you a licence. Add to that the fact that many - probably most - people who say they don't need one are lying, and the mail-bomb/doorstep strategy isn't so unreasonable. Highly annoying for all those honest people who don't watch any live TV at all and so don't need a licence, but hey, what can you do with all the lying chavs who say they don't need one when they do. They're ruining it for everyone else.

On their website they say you can write to them to declare you don't need a licence and they might make a quick visit "just to confirm" - I'd be curious to hear if anyone has gone down that route and got TVL to agree in writing that they don't need a licence.
I did go through the steps earlier to see whats involved, but it looks like it ends up needing to give them authority to enter your premises. They state that after filling in the declaration they will leave you alone for 2 years, but I guess I am a little cynical.

I actually got rid of Sky TV about 3 years ago and don't miss it one bit. I intend taking down the TV antennas from the chimney and the dish from the wall, I will probably just cut the cables and push them outside for now until the weather gets better . On one hand I don't mind in principle anyone inspecting if it satisfies them and they leave me alone, on the other hand I don't see why I should give them the authority to enter my house.

Back around 2005 when I had no TV and no licence for a few years I received loads of threatening letters about what they were going to do to me, all of which they had no power to do. I never once received a visit, perhaps that was due to working during the week, and that my gates were locked with only a postbox available to them.

carlwaring 28-12-2012 21:09
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35517226)
The TV licence permits use of equipment to receive live TV, not ownership of that equipment. It doesnt matter how many TVs, Freesat boxes or VHS machines you own, if you don't use them to receive live TV, you don't need a licence. No need to rip any tuners out of anything.
Very clear and precise and not at all "muddy".

Quote:
It is in TVL's interest to muddy the waters...
See above comment ;)

Quote:
because they are an agent that gets commission on licence sales so they want every household to have one, whether it's needed or not.
Then those type of people need to be found and sacked.

Quote:
Also, to be fair to them (not that they deserve it), almost every household in the UK does watch live telly, so a significant proportion of the unlicensed addresses in the country almost certainly *do* need a licence and the door-to-door enforcers salesmen agents have met every chav and scutter and heard all their lame excuses.
Another well-put point.

---------- Post added at 20:07 ---------- Previous post was at 20:06 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35517237)
So telling the TVL that you don't need a licence would put a stop to the threatening letters and the enforcement officers knocking at the door? Nah...
Yes.

---------- Post added at 20:08 ---------- Previous post was at 20:07 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35517260)
Add to that the fact that many - probably most - people who say they don't need one are lying, and the mail-bomb/doorstep strategy isn't so unreasonable. Highly annoying for all those honest people who don't watch any live TV at all and so don't need a licence, but hey, what can you do with all the lying chavs who say they don't need one when they do. They're ruining it for everyone else.
Also well-put.

---------- Post added at 20:09 ---------- Previous post was at 20:08 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35517273)
BTW We're not chavs, just don't subscribe to the conventional model.
The what-now? :confused:

Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35517281)
Yep, they rely upon the perceived threats. In reality they really can't do much if you keep to a simple rule set.
Yes. It is easy. Just co-operate :)

Chris 28-12-2012 21:09
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35517273)
Don't think you're going to be run over in the rush.:D

BTW We're not chavs, just don't subscribe to the conventional model.
You call it 'not subscribing to the conventional model' ... I call it breaking the law. ;). Like it or not, the TV licence is mandatory in the UK if your viewing habits fulfil the criteria.

Re chavs and scutters, I used to know a TVL agent and he got almost all his business on council estates. He got a bounty for every house he signed up. Often, people would sign a direct debit on the doorstep and cancel it 2 months later. He would go back and sign them up again and get another bounty. This could sometimes be repeated several times and is probably why TVL is so desperate to collect fees wherever it can (and why some of the agents are so aggressive at trying to sell a licence to you).

carlwaring 28-12-2012 21:11
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35517289)
You call it 'not subscribing to the conventional model' ... I call it breaking the law. ;). Like it or not, the TV licence is mandatory in the UK if your viewing habits fulfil the criteria.
I did wonder if that's what he meant; but decided to give him the chance to confirm it first :)

Escapee 28-12-2012 21:24
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517284)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy-J View Post
So telling the TVL that you don't need a licence would put a stop to the threatening letters and the enforcement officers knocking at the door? Nah...

Yes
I will put it to the test, I will fill in the forms, cancel the DD, ask for any refund due and see how I get on. The cables will be cut and hanging outside for the TV aerials and Satellite dish to be removed when the weather gets warmer.

I will update on the communications I receive, because I know from experience you are entirely incorrect and perhaps a little naive if you think TVL will not be bombarding me with threatening letters and easy payment plans.

Jimmy-J 28-12-2012 21:56
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escapee (Post 35517298)
I will put it to the test, I will fill in the forms, cancel the DD, ask for any refund due and see how I get on. The cables will be cut and hanging outside for the TV aerials and Satellite dish to be removed when the weather gets warmer.

I will update on the communications I receive, because I know from experience you are entirely incorrect and perhaps a little naive if you think TVL will not be bombarding me with threatening letters and easy payment plans.
I wouldn't cut any cables, remove any satellite dish or aerials. They are the ones that are assuming you are a liar, and it is illegal for them to gain entry to your property without your permission or a warrant.

My brother informed them that he no longer needed a TVL but still he has had 2 enforcement officers visit him on separate occasions.

In my opinion, the only way to make their system a fair one is to give citizens a proper choice and not one that uses threats and fancy language to intimidate and force people to pay for something they don't require.

Think of all the money the BBC could save if they actually followed the same type of system as other media companies such as VM and Sky. :D

Escapee 28-12-2012 21:59
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35517305)
You'll need to check out For all the letters and tricks they play here

Best of luck. We've not paid for five years or so but you need to be aware of their nasty tricks. "We're phoning you on a survey of the TV programmes that you watch" It's TVL entrapment!!!! BBC B'stards.
They wouldn't get any luck surveying me because my house phone is always on silent, I only have one because I need it for the internet. Anyone who needs to get hold of me urgently uses my mobile.

Everyone cringes in work when I get someone phone me up to survey me or some Indian phones about my PPI or accident I have had.:D

martyh 28-12-2012 22:50
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35517308)
I wouldn't cut any cables, remove any satellite dish or aerials. They are the ones that are assuming you are a liar, and it is illegal for them to gain entry to your property without your permission or a warrant.
I would because in the 1st line of the law it says you can't have any equipment installed capable of receiving signals and having loads of cables through your wall into a sky box is probably classed as installed ,so i would yank em out

Escapee 28-12-2012 22:57
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35517327)
I would because in the 1st line of the law it says you can't have any equipment installed capable of receiving signals and having loads of cables through your wall into a sky box is probably classed as installed ,so i would yank em out
I intended to remove the aerials and dishes anyway when the weather gets better, so cutting the cables is no expense.

I have a 1m dish with an actuator on the wall that has been there since the late 1980s when my grandfather owned the house, I wish I hadn't put it so high up now.

Anyway, the BBC will have to be a little more austere, because that's £105 they wont be getting off me.

Jimmy-J 28-12-2012 23:05
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35517327)
I would because in the 1st line of the law it says you can't have any equipment installed capable of receiving signals and having loads of cables through your wall into a sky box is probably classed as installed ,so i would yank em out
They would still probably assume that you are receiving a signal using an indoor aerial, many people have theirs installed out of the way in the loft.

carlwaring 28-12-2012 23:12
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35517305)
You'll need to check out...
No he doesn't or it won't be a true test.That site is merely one person's opinions and interpretations.

Quote:
Best of luck. We've not paid for five years or so...
So you don't watch any live TV then?

---------- Post added at 22:12 ---------- Previous post was at 22:09 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35517308)
In my opinion, the only way to make their system a fair one is to give citizens a proper choice...
You have the choice to watch live TV or not. If you do then you need a licence. If you don't then you do not.

Quote:
Think of all the money the BBC could save if they actually followed the same type of system as other media companies such as VM and Sky. :D
Which would fundamentally change the very nature of the BBC for all the reasons previously stated.

martyh 28-12-2012 23:23
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517338)
You have the choice to watch live TV or not. If you do then you need a licence. If you don't then you do not.

.
Not much of a choice that is it.For the sake of argument lets assume that i don't ever watch any channel or listen to any radio station that is connected with the bbc ,i watch subscription sky tv and other terrestrial programs paid for via advertising .But as the law stands i am breaking the law if i don't have a TVL .So in order to watch over 200 channels that i pay for, i have to pay £145 p/a to fund a company i don't use .You think that is fair ?

carlwaring 28-12-2012 23:28
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35517341)
Not much of a choice that is it.For the sake of argument lets assume that i don't ever watch any channel or listen to any radio station that is connected with the bbc...
The BBC has nothing to do with it. If you want to watch any "live TV" you have to have a TVL. It really is that simple.

Whether I think it is fair or not is completely beside the point. Unless, of course, the point is "paying for things you don't use" in which we're back full-circle to the arguments previously stated in this thread. So I won't bother doing so again here.

However, I will add this. Of those 200 channels you mention, how many do you regularly watch? And is it fair that you have to pay for all the ones you don't watch just to be able to watch the ones you want to?

martyh 28-12-2012 23:39
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517342)
The BBC has nothing to do with it. If you want to watch any "live TV" you have to have a TVL. It really is that simple.
It's everything to do with the BBC ,they collect the money and they spend it ,why should i pay a company money for a product i do not use (remember that this hypothetical)especially when i choose to pay far more to other companies that i feel offer a superior product .


Whether I think it is fair or not is completely beside the point. Unless, of course, the point is "paying for things you don't use" in which we're back full-circle to the arguments previously stated in this thread. So I won't bother doing so again here.

No it's not ,i'm asking for your honest opinion

Jimmy-J 28-12-2012 23:48
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517338)
You have the choice to watch live TV or not. If you do then you need a licence. If you don't then you do not.
It's not what I'd call a fair choice... And my brother who chose to inform the TVL that he no longer requires services from the BBC is treated like a criminal by their henchmen.

Anyway, people-power will one day end their reign of terror, and we will be free from their oppression! :p:

martyh 28-12-2012 23:52
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35517350)

Anyway, people-power will one day end their reign of terror, and we will be free from their oppression! :p:
and on that glorious day record viewers will take up the subscription as they realise they can't now watch the programs they where adamant they never watched in the first place :D

Sirius 29-12-2012 00:11
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escapee (Post 35517298)
I will put it to the test, I will fill in the forms, cancel the DD, ask for any refund due and see how I get on. The cables will be cut and hanging outside for the TV aerials and Satellite dish to be removed when the weather gets warmer.

I will update on the communications I receive, because I know from experience you are entirely incorrect and perhaps a little naive if you think TVL will not be bombarding me with threatening letters and easy payment plans.
Do me a favour if its possible video every call you get to your property and put it on YouTube for all to see ;)

carlwaring 29-12-2012 00:11
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35517346)
No it's not ,i'm asking for your honest opinion
Then the answer is yes. Because, if my answer were any different, I would be a hypocrite to pay for schools if I didn't have children, or the NHS when I don't use them much at all, or any local council service that I don't use at all.

(BTW Being long-term un-employed I don't actually pay Taxes of course. But if did, the above would be true.)

There are many things we have to pay for for the good of the nation as a whole. A national broadcaster free from commercial pressures is just one of them.

Spoiler: 
Now then. I wonder who will be the first to again accuse me of equating the NHS with the BBC which, of course, would be to completely miss the point!

martyh 29-12-2012 00:16
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517368)
Then the answer is yes. Because, if my answer were any different, I would be a hypocrite to pay for schools if I didn't have children, or the NHS when I don't use them much at all, or any local council service that I don't use at all.

(BTW Being long-term un-employed I don't actually pay Taxes of course. But if did, the above would be true.)
There you go again ,comparing the bbc to essential services :rolleyes: admittedly some of the council services aren't essential but that's a different thread and the councils have a different remit to central government .

Anyhoo you think it is fair that people pay for a media service regardless of whether they use it or not ,damn pleased sky or VM don't have that policy .

carlwaring 29-12-2012 00:25
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35517371)
There you go again ,comparing the bbc to essential services :rolleyes:
Some might (and actually do) say that a national broadcaster, free from commercial services, is essential.

Quote:
admittedly some of the council services aren't essential
So it is a valid comparison then :)

Quote:
Anyhoo you think it is fair that people pay for a media service regardless of whether they use it or not ,damn pleased sky or VM don't have that policy .
I did not say "a media service like Sky or VM". I said a "national broadcaster free from commercial pressure". Two completely different things. But nice spin :rolleyes:

martyh 29-12-2012 00:44
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517376)
Some might (and actually do) say that a national broadcaster, free from commercial services, is essential.
well it's not ,and its ridiculous to suggest it is

Quote:
So it is a valid comparison then :)
no:rolleyes:

I
Quote:
did not say "a media service like Sky or VM". I said a "national broadcaster free from commercial pressure". Two completely different things. But nice spin :rolleyes:
and i didn't say you did ,i said it's a good job sky or VM don't have the same policy as the bbc

anyway this discussion is worn out and getting further OT by the second,we are supposed to be discussing the disgraceful wage settlements of BBC execs ...as perceived by the public and the government

carlwaring 29-12-2012 10:56
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35517384)
well it's not ,and its ridiculous to suggest it is
Well that may be your opinion, and of course you are welcome to it, but it is a minority view.

---------- Post added at 09:56 ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35517384)
I and i didn't say you did ,i said it's a good job sky or VM don't have the same policy as the bbc.
Why would they; there's clearly no money in it? :)

And, before you try and twist that, Sky and VM exist only to make a profit for their share-holders whilst the BBC does not.

Quote:
anyway this discussion is worn out and getting further OT by the second,we are supposed to be discussing the disgraceful wage settlements of BBC execs ...as perceived by the public and the government
Unfortunately, their perception is clearly wrong; fueled I am sure by certain "news" papers' anti-BBC rhetoric. If they stuck to facts then there wouldn't be a problem.

Maggy 29-12-2012 11:25
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Lets get back to the topic please.

Sirius 29-12-2012 11:32
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517452)
Well that may be your opinion, and of course you are welcome to it, but it is a minority view.
Would you like to show proof ?

BTW the way you are defending the BBC and these high payoffs any one would think you WORKED for the BBC ;)

carlwaring 29-12-2012 11:48
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35517462)
Would you like to show proof?
BBC1 and BBC2 are the most-watched pair of channels from any single broadcaster.

Now, either people are simply watching the BBC "because they're forced to pay for it" or the BBC are actually making programmes that people want to watch.

However, that's OT so if you want to carry on with it, start another thread :)

Maggy 29-12-2012 11:50
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35517462)
Would you like to show proof ?

BTW the way you are defending the BBC and these high payoffs any one would think you WORKED for the BBC ;)
Actually Sirius I think that carl is just passionate about us having an independent public broadcaster.I too want that and I cannot see any way of achieving that using another method other than the licence fee.

I see that you resent having to pay the licence fee.I too don't like paying taxes but that's life.There is virtually a tax on everything these days and we just have to pay them.We aren't rich enough to use tax havens and the ways of avoiding paying tax are limited for the likes of thee and me.

Sadly the BBC isn't the only public body paying over the odds in wages and salaries.You only have to buy Private Eye and read who the latest turd is who is mugging the public purse in sums that actually eclipse the amounts that the workshy/disabled/terminally ill are accused of cheating the system.

carlwaring 29-12-2012 12:36
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35517473)
Sadly the BBC isn't the only public body paying over the odds in wages and salaries.
The point being that they aren't paying "over the odds". They're paying in line with others. Whether that is "over the odds" is merely personal opinion.

Maggy 29-12-2012 14:59
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517486)
The point being that they aren't paying "over the odds". They're paying in line with others. Whether that is "over the odds" is merely personal opinion.
Sorry if I have to tighten my belt and public services are being cut back and public service workers face redundancy and job losses then the BBC has to face up to some solid truths.Even the commercial broadcasters are going to have to make cutbacks eventually.Being in line is not going to keep the revenues coming in.They are all getting a smaller and smaller slice of the revenue pie.

Paul 29-12-2012 15:06
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517452)
...but it is a minority view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517486)
The point being that they aren't paying "over the odds".
These are also merely your "personal opinions".

I strongly advise you stop rubbishing other peoples opinions in every other post.

Sirius 29-12-2012 15:25
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517469)
BBC1 and BBC2 are the most-watched pair of channels from any single broadcaster.

Now, either people are simply watching the BBC "because they're forced to pay for it" or the BBC are actually making programmes that people want to watch.

However, that's OT so if you want to carry on with it, start another thread :)
That is nothing to do with what i asked.

martyh said

Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35517384)
well it's not ,and its ridiculous to suggest it is
You said

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517452)
Well that may be your opinion, and of course you are welcome to it, but it is a minority view.
I asked

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35517462)
Would you like to show proof ?
You answered with this

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517469)
BBC1 and BBC2 are the most-watched pair of channels from any single broadcaster.

Now, either people are simply watching the BBC "because they're forced to pay for it" or the BBC are actually making programmes that people want to watch.

However, that's OT so if you want to carry on with it, start another thread :)
Which did not answer the QUESTION raised where is the proof in you statement, i did not see you state it was your opinion, your post indecated to me it was a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517452)
but it is a minority view.
So please answer the question asked.

Damien 29-12-2012 15:34
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
The BBC do need to pay inline with other broadcasters otherwise they'll continually struggle to attract talented and qualified people and find the ones they do have poached by the likes of Sky. Spending less on less talented people is just wasting all our money.

Sirius 29-12-2012 15:42
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35517534)
The BBC do need to pay inline with other broadcasters otherwise they'll continually struggle to attract talented and qualified people and find the ones they do have poached by the likes of Sky. Spending less on less talented people is just wasting all our money.
But giving that money away in high pay offs to managers and directors because they are not good enough or drop the BBC in the poo is a waste of our licence tax as well.

Damien 29-12-2012 15:42
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35517384)
well it's not ,and its ridiculous to suggest it is
It's not essential but I do think it's important. The BBC has been a strong developer of British writers, directors, comedians and actors. It's presence has a positive effect on all the other channels who need to keep to a certain standard in order not to be absolutely trounced by the Beeb. It also allows other channels to take advertising revenue for themselves, if the BBC went to an ad-supported network ITV and Channel 4 would find it very difficult indeed.

Go to France and look at the quality of their TV. It's awful. This is a country with a good artistic culture and yet their TV is so devoid of any creativity it's shameful. It's very bad. We would probably follow with extremely cheap to produce TV Studio shows and American imports.

Monty Python?
Yes, Minister?
In the Thick of It?
Planet Earth?
So many of the BBC's nature, science and history series?

The list goes on and how many of those shows would be commissioned when advertising money is king? Planet Earth is simply not possible, it's ratings were never, ever, going to be good enough to recoup the vast investment had. Especially in a country whose population isn't large enough to make enough money from anything considered to be a niche market. We couldn't make a British HBO work for example...

So it's not essential but I think it's very important.

Sirius 29-12-2012 15:49
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35517538)
It's not essential but I do think it's important. The BBC has been a strong developer of British writers, directors, comedians and actors. It's presence has a positive effect on all the other channels who need to keep to a certain standard in order not to be absolutely trounced by the Beeb. It also allows other channels not to take advertising revenue for themselves, if the BBC went to an ad-supported network ITV and Channel 4 would find it very difficult indeed.

Go to France and look at the quality of their TV. It's awful. This is a country with a good artistic culture and yet their TV is so devoid of any creativity it's shameful. It's very bad. We would probably follow to extremely cheap to produce TV Studio shows and American importants.

Monty Python?
Yes, Minister?
In the Thick of It?
Planet Earth?
So many of the BBC's nature, science and history series?

The list goes on and how many of those shows would be commissioned when advertising money is king? Planet Earth is simply not possible, it's ratings were never, ever, going to be good enough to recoup the vast investment had. Especially in a country whose population isn't large enough to make enough money from anything considered to be a niche market. We couldn't make a British HBO work for example...

So it's not essential but I think it's very important.
Damien


Thats a much better answer than a "Thats rubbish"

Thank you

It would be nice to see Carl's proof for his statement however.

Osem 29-12-2012 16:08
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35517537)
But giving that money away in high pay offs to managers and directors because they are not good enough or drop the BBC in the poo is a waste of our licence tax as well.
Quite right. :tu:

Given they are the custodians of so much heritage and a good deal of public money they really ought to be beyond reproach in their financial arrangements, ensuring the public value for money and not being seen to reward failure.

carlwaring 29-12-2012 16:25
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul M (Post 35517519)
These are also merely your "personal opinions".

I strongly advise you stop rubbishing other peoples opinions in every other post.
I have posted links which prove that it is not just my opinion. I can't help it if people won't read what I post.

---------- Post added at 15:25 ---------- Previous post was at 15:11 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35517548)
Given they are the custodians of so much heritage and a good deal of public money they really ought to be beyond reproach in their financial arrangements, ensuring the public value for money and not being seen to reward failure.
And so they are. They receive no more or less than those in similar positions in other public sector positions (as I have recently proved) and often much less than other broadcasters.

That you feel they should get less is a valid opinion of course.

Maggy 29-12-2012 17:49
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35517534)
The BBC do need to pay inline with other broadcasters otherwise they'll continually struggle to attract talented and qualified people and find the ones they do have poached by the likes of Sky. Spending less on less talented people is just wasting all our money.
So is over paying for inept people who cannot do the job.;)

Qtx 29-12-2012 17:54
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35517237)
So telling the TVL that you don't need a licence would put a stop to the threatening letters and the enforcement officers knocking at the door? Nah...
Nope, they also won't even believe you if you say its only on for the dog

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

Sirius 29-12-2012 18:56
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qtx (Post 35517611)
Nope, they also won't even believe you if you say its only on for the dog

http://s1.postimage.org/5z5luyhwv/image.png
Then the dog can pay his own BBC tax :)

Damien 29-12-2012 19:13
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35517605)
So is over paying for inept people who cannot do the job.;)
Yes but for the most part I don't think that is a feature of the BBC. The last Director General was, by most accounts, a talented and capable man but was caught out by the crisis. He didn't really do anything too wrong until he claimed he hadn't read the papers about the Lord McAlpin scandal.

Qtx 29-12-2012 19:24
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35517639)
Then the dog can pay his own BBC tax :)
She only watches 3D stuff though (seriously). She should get a discount!

Maggy 29-12-2012 20:42
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35517652)
Yes but for the most part I don't think that is a feature of the BBC. The last Director General was, by most accounts, a talented and capable man but was caught out by the crisis. He didn't really do anything too wrong until he claimed he hadn't read the papers about the Lord McAlpin scandal.
I'm sorry but someone at that level in the BBC should be more on the ball.I'm sorry that he was in over his head but we need people of better calibre.We need more Rieths

carlwaring 29-12-2012 20:43
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35517652)
Yes but for the most part I don't think that is a feature of the BBC.
Which is the point I have been trying to make all along.

These stories are unique, which is why they make the headlines. Actually, no. They make the headlines only because the BBC-hating papers like the Daily Wail want to make a big thing about them.

There was a story a few years ago about the OTT expenses that BBC executives were on. When it was investigated (as all these things seem to have to be) it found that the expenses were really nothing out of the ordinary at all. It was just a big number overall.

In fact, that sounds eerily familiar ;)

Quote:
The last Director General was, by most accounts, a talented and capable man but was caught out by the crisis. He didn't really do anything too wrong until he claimed he hadn't read the papers about the Lord McAlpine scandal.
Exactly. He was hounded out by the anti-BBC press.

---------- Post added at 19:43 ---------- Previous post was at 19:42 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35517708)
I'm sorry but someone at that level in the BBC should be more on the ball.I'm sorry that he was in over his head but we need people of better calibre.We need more Rieths
No-one could have survived the pressure he was put under by the anti-BBC press.

Sirius 29-12-2012 20:53
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517709)
No-one could have survived the pressure he was put under by the anti-BBC press.
To reply in your vain.

Your statement is moot as it is completely un-provable.

Paul 30-12-2012 01:42
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Irrelevant posts removed. What happens on other forums isnt our concern.

Sirius 30-12-2012 11:30
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Just been having another read of this in light of some posts in this thread.

http://www.ealinggazette.co.uk/ealin...4767-32496587/
Here's a quote from it

Quote:
The probe also comes after parliament's Public Accounts Committee criticised the BBC's use of licence fee payers' money as "cavalier" and "out of line with public expectations".

Osem 30-12-2012 11:42
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
I'd certainly agree that some of their spending is cavalier... and out of line with public expectations.

Sirius 30-12-2012 11:52
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35517861)
I'd certainly agree that some of their spending is cavalier... and out of line with public expectations.
The argument by some is "the others do it and the BBC is in line with them" In other words if the others can get away with it why not the BBC. the difference is the others don't get a hand out from the tax payer each year :mad:

carlwaring 30-12-2012 12:12
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
It's not a matter of "getting away with it" though. And "public expectations" is also completely irrelevant. I don't "expect" the NHS to waste £12bn on a computer system that doesn't work. But they did and there's nothing anyone can do about it now.

I'm sure the "public expects" everyone else to pay as much tax as possible but, of course, they wouldn't take any and all legal steps available to them to pay as little as possible, would they?

---------- Post added at 11:12 ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35517863)
The argument by some is "the others do it and the BBC is in line with them" In other words if the others can get away with it why not the BBC. the difference is the others don't get a hand out from the tax payer each year :mad:
So the NHS doesn't get a "hand out" via our taxes? Weird. Coulda sworn they did :confused:

Sirius 30-12-2012 12:15
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517867)
So the NHS doesn't get a "hand out" via our taxes? Weird. Coulda sworn they did :(
The NHS is needed in my opinion more than a Corporation who in my opinion thinks its have a god given right to waste its yearly hand out and i hope this will now been seen to be true via the present investigation.

I do also feel the NHS has to be investigated if they are wasting public money

martyh 30-12-2012 12:28
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517867)



So the NHS doesn't get a "hand out" via our taxes? Weird. Coulda sworn they did :confused:
What is it with you and the NHS ,we are talking about the BBC and other media providers ,comparing salaries,bonuses and pay offs ,nothing whatsoever to do with the NHS .The others that Sirius mentioned are media providers such as Sky and ITV they are private enterprises and can pay what they like the BBC is not and must pay what is deemed reasonable and must be accountable to the tax payer

Sirius 30-12-2012 12:33
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by marty (Post 35517873)
What is it with you and the NHS ,we are talking about the BBC and other media providers ,comparing salaries,bonuses and pay offs ,nothing whatsoever to do with the NHS .The others that Sirius mentioned are media providers such as Sky and ITV they are private enterprises and can pay what they like the BBC is not and must pay what is deemed reasonable and must be accountable to the tax payer
Its the only argument he has put forward, the NHS does it so that means the BBC can do it :rolleyes:

The likes of Sky and Itv do not have the benefit of a yearly tax handout and have to ensure they are profitable or they go bust.

Damien 30-12-2012 12:43
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35517863)
The argument by some is "the others do it and the BBC is in line with them" In other words if the others can get away with it why not the BBC. the difference is the others don't get a hand out from the tax payer each year :mad:
It's not that. It's the fact that if other companies are paying more than the BBC will be staffed by people unable to command those wages elsewhere. In theory the tier below the best. It's hard to quantify exactly but you can say for the sure that the talented staff would go where the higher wages are. That isn't a efficient use of money from the tax payer..

---------- Post added at 11:41 ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35517873)
What is it with you and the NHS ,we are talking about the BBC and other media providers ,comparing salaries,bonuses and pay offs ,nothing whatsoever to do with the NHS .The others that Sirius mentioned are media providers such as Sky and ITV they are private enterprises and can pay what they like the BBC is not and must pay what is deemed reasonable and must be accountable to the tax payer
Deemed reasonable by whom? Surely reasonable is the industry standard. You're not going to get away with trying to pay less than that and expect the BBC to be effective.

martyh 30-12-2012 12:46
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
As far as i can see the problem isn't the wage ,if that is on a par with other media companies like Sky then fine so be it ,however when those execs leave to go to one of those companies or get sacked the payoffs received are obscene and in no way encourage a good job from the execs ,in fact why should they bother when getting sacked from the BBC ,in the words of one politician,"is like winning the lottery" ,they don't need to do a good job when they are set up for life should they be sacked or leave to a more lucrative post at another company

carlwaring 30-12-2012 13:12
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35517870)
The NHS is needed in my opinion more than a Corporation who in my opinion thinks its have a god given right to waste its yearly hand out and i hope this will now been seen to be true via the present investigation.
And we all are welcome to our opinions :) However, as I have already saif, this current investigation, in my opinion, just be another waste of money when it is found that they aren't, actually, doing anything wrong.

---------- Post added at 12:09 ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35517873)
What is it with you and the NHS...
It's called an analogy; or a comparison. They are (whether you think so or not) both public services paid for out of taxes of some description.

Quote:
we are talking about the BBC and other media providers
No. Just the BBC.

Quote:
The others that Sirius mentioned are media providers such as Sky and ITV they are private enterprises and can pay what they like the BBC is not and must pay what is deemed reasonable and must be accountable to the tax payer
And they are. Hence this investigation. We'll see what happens.

---------- Post added at 12:12 ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35517876)
Its the only argument he has put forward, the NHS does it so that means the BBC can do it :rolleyes:
Wow! Way to completely miss my point as I have never actually said specifically that.

Quote:
The likes of Sky and Itv do not have the benefit of a yearly tax handout and have to ensure they are profitable or they go bust.
My comparisons are and only ever have been with other public sector services.

So another one who doesn't seem to actually read my posts and links therein :rolleyes:

Sirius 30-12-2012 13:13
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35517881)
As far as i can see the problem isn't the wage ,if that is on a par with other media companies like Sky then fine so be it ,however when those execs leave to go to one of those companies or get sacked the payoffs received are obscene and in no way encourage a good job from the execs ,in fact why should they bother when getting sacked from the BBC ,in the words of one politician,"is like winning the lottery" ,they don't need to do a good job when they are set up for life should they be sacked or leave to a more lucrative post at another company
I wish i could get sacked and then demand a big payout, But as far as the BBC goes and there massive payouts don't worry the tax payer will fund it from the BBC's handout they get free each year. :mad:

However i feel its typical of this country and the BBC to reward failure in this way with a big payout.

carlwaring 30-12-2012 13:17
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35517877)
Deemed reasonable by whom? Surely reasonable is the industry standard. You're not going to get away with trying to pay less than that and expect the BBC to be effective.
Exactly. This is the same public who will complain about something to Newswatch or POV which, when explained by the BBC is actually perfectly logical and common sense.

---------- Post added at 12:16 ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35517881)
however when those execs leave to go to one of those companies or get sacked the payoffs received are obscene and in no way encourage a good job from the execs ,in fact why should they bother when getting sacked from the BBC ,in the words of one politician,"is like winning the lottery" ,they don't need to do a good job when they are set up for life should they be sacked or leave to a more lucrative post at another company
And, as one of my previous posts has shown, such comments would be very hypocritical given some other recent public sector pay-offs. (See below!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35517892)
I wish i could get sacked and then demand a big payout..
Then go try getting a job as a Council Leader then.

http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/Ex-counc...ail/story.html
Quote:
KENT County Council's former managing director Katherine Kerswell walked away with a £420,000 redundancy payoff after just 18 months of work, it has been confirmed.
http://www.greatyarmouthmercury.co.u...ents_1_1679206
Quote:
“HYPOCRITE” Tory politicians offered a top council boss a six-figure payoff then criticised Labour for doing the same, it has been claimed.

Richard Packham, managing director of Great Yarmouth Borough Council, could receive a £136,000 severance package if he decides to walk away from the authority - which must find £10m of savings in the next three years.

martyh 30-12-2012 13:19
Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35517894)


And, as one of my previous posts has shown, such comments would be very hypocritical given some other recent public sector pay-offs.
.
Hypocritical they may be ,does not mean that they are any less true


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:27.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum