'Austerity' at the BBC
 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/t...-pay-offs.html

Well it's nice to see that licence payers' cash is being well spent and the hard times are being equally shared... :rolleyes:

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

The BBC, they should never be trusted with the tax they get from us. They only waste it on themselves. Having seen the inside of mediacity in Manchester i can assure you they have nothing but the BEST, i wish my office was as plush ;)

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

That is the BBC, not same in a lot of public service areas.

Not really surprised.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Well I guess they've realised that us licence paying plebs wouldn't sleep well unless we were secure in the knowledge that BBC bigwigs were living the high life at our expense. :rolleyes:

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

One word and that is Pathetic.:td:

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

No. What is pathetic is threads like this with absolutely no context in it all all and bascially boils-down to "that's a large number".

The most directly comparable is that other publically-owned broadcaster, Channel 4.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010.../channel-4-pay
Yes, okay. That was in 2010; the same year in which their own "DG" received a pay-off of nearly £1.5m.

And, whilst not a "public sector", when Rebekah Brooks resigned from her "DG" post, she received around £7m.

Try looking at other "public sector" pay. The leader of Brighton & Hove Council gets £150k per year; and I'm sure there are others.

Although, of course, the BBC isn't really a "public sector" company at all as they have to live, work and survive in a commercial world. However, it has been proved, time and again, that they do almost always pay less than their commercial rivals.

Exactly.

---------- Post added at 11:59 ---------- Previous post was at 11:53 ----------

1. The move to Manchester (and elsewhere out of London) was forced on them by the then Labour Govt.
2. The BBC neither built nor own Media City so what it looks like is nothing to do with them.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

I can think of quite a few other words which sum it up and most aren't printable here... grrr!

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

It is a large number ,i consider £58million in 1 year a very large number by any standard .
Take Mark Byford for example ,paid £949,000 for voluntary redundancy and a uncapped 2/3 rds final salary pension despite being responsible for various rounds of cuts .

nice if you can get it

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

However i have been IN the BBC part of the site on many occasions, those BBC buildings where the multi storey car park is and i can assure you they have the BEST of anything they want.

Carl what they PUT in there buildings as everything to do with them or do peel holdings say what computers and coffee machines they use, what mood rooms they have, what rest areas they have with snooze chairs and other delights.

Question for you CARL have you been in the BBC buildings at Media City ?????

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Well looking at last nights offerings I can't see that they are spending as much as I would expect.Yes there was Dr Who but what happened after that?

Downton Abbey on ITV..I can't stand the show and and it was their only top show.Channel 4?Channel 5 had 3 hours of Eddy Stobbart.

Seems that they could cut the pay packets a little if they haven't enough cash left to give some really good entertainment on the one night in the year when they could count on a large audience.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Yes and IIRC the generous pensions being provided are final salary based so Entwhistle's pension for life will be based on the inflated salary he 'earned' for the few weeks he wasn't doing the job! :mad:

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Yes, totally sgree. I was disappointed with selection last night.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Basically Peel Holdings sell an empty shell which the beeb have to pay external contractors to fit out ,who in turn see the "tax money" available and treble their normal costs ,the same as any other commercial lease so either way you look at it ,it was a Billion £ + move

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

We basically watched what we have recorded in the last few weeks as that way you miss out on the rubbish being served up

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

I have - and to be honest I didn't think they were so different to any other modern work space I've been in, especially not different to any comparable creative workspace.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

I know what they do as i have been in those offices many times. I was shocked at the facilities they get for free sorry at the tax payers expense

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Such as? Yes. A couple of dodgy decisions news-wise this year which, in fact, were polar opposites of each other.

Well, there will, of course, be changes. But whatever they do, some people won't be happy.

Something you simply cannot prove. And what about the NHS? They didn't "run a mile" from him. In fact, they embraced him and placed him un-supervised nearer even-more vunerable young people than the BBC ever did.

It was either that or potentially a lot more money after a costly legal battle. And, of course, this was after his 20+ years at the BBC, not just for his 54 days as DG.

But don't let facts get in your way, will you? :rolleyes:

Well they have already had a 16-20% cut in real terms with the latest settlement. So you're not far off.

---------- Post added at 14:39 ---------- Previous post was at 14:38 ----------

Yes. But not inside. I have seen the privately-owned Media City.

---------- Post added at 14:40 ---------- Previous post was at 14:39 ----------

Fair enough. I see your point now. However, you expect them to have crap in there?

But this is the BBC. They're supposed to make do with what everyone else throw's out aren't they? :rolleyes:

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

I suppose it depends on what your used to, i certainly don't get the free facilities they get.

---------- Post added at 14:46 ---------- Previous post was at 14:41 ----------

No i don't but i don't expect them to waste money on top of the range kit ether.

The BBC are arrogant in the extreme because they have money presented on a plate to them every year via what equates to a tax.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

No ,they are supposed use tax money with care and efficiency.The NAO will look to see if that is the case or not ,and i have a feeling it will not look favourable for the BBC

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Me too.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Not at all they are to use tax payers money in such a way as to get value for money.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

The Beeb are just the same as most other large organisations that have seen their income curtailed. They just cut services and customer facing staff or in the Beeb's case drastically reduce the quantity and quality of programming across the board.

Meanwhile Exec and senior management continue to live the high life and trouser seemingly ever increasing perks, bonuses and pensions.

As well as the EU I think it's time for a referendum on whether or not we really need the burden of the BBC in it's present form or if at all.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

As do the NHS and, IIRC, they have wasted far more than the BBC on many things on many occasions. Like a £12bn computer system for example. That was 3x what the BBC get every year.

---------- Post added at 15:24 ---------- Previous post was at 15:23 ----------

Which, for the most part, they do. Unlike, say, the NHS.

---------- Post added at 15:30 ---------- Previous post was at 15:24 ----------

Quality is subjective. And I think prime-time programming has been 'protcted', as has some other. But yes, some things have been changed; for the better some might say,

Not according to this article. ISTR a more recent one saying that this had actually happened from earlier this year but can't find it right now.

Do we need a national broadcaster, free from commercial pressures? Sure we do. As do many other countries.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

This thread is about the BBC though,and the NHS budget is far greater than the BBC's ,also the BBC is a luxury ,a non essential service

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

:clap:

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

As both are, essentially, public services, the comparison is valid.

If the comparison was "public services that waste money" then it is valid.

Many, many people (in many countries) would disagree with you on that.

Why is a public service broadcaster, free from the pressures of commercialisation, not essential?

Perhaps Libraries aren't really essential as you can buy books from bookshops, but we still have them.

Is the NHS essential when we could all buy our healthcare needs from BUPA? (for example.)

(For the avoidance of doubt, my answer in all cases, is yes!)

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Carl the BBC is NOT in the same league as the BBC not matter how much you say it is. One saves lives the other peddles entertainment. You always try to put the BBC on the same level as the NHS or other essencial services, when the BBC can carry out life saving operations i might agree with you till then all i see is you spouting your usual "I say the BBC is great and therefor you should all think so as well"

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

(I am assuming, before you edit it, that you meant "the NHS" there?!)

I'm not saying anything. But that you think the BBC only "peddles entertainment" says more about your problem (one might say "bias") with the BBC than it does about the BBC itself.

---------- Post added at 16:37 ---------- Previous post was at 16:31 ----------

Actually, no. Not at all. They are - whether you agree or not - currently both public services and that is the only level on which I am comparing them.

Besides, who says that public services have to only and exclusively be absolutely essential? Are local, council-run public swimming pools essential? Debatable, but most councils seem to have one.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Everybody in the whole wide world could function quite adequately if the BBC was taken off air tomorrow.And since you keep bringing up the world service which is part funded by licence fees how about some of those extremely greatfull foreigners cough up some wedge to pay for it and then see how long it lasts

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

True. But that wasn't my point. Which, again, seems to have been completely ignored. I wonder why? :confused:

I have not once mentioned the World Service so I don't know where you got that from? :confused:

I was, in fact, referring to public services broadcasters in other countries; many of which are also funded by a TV Licence of some description.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Yes it was and you where quite clear about it because

i said

you said

so i stand by my point of many, many people in many countries could manage perfectly fine without it and since you introduced "many, many people in many countries" into the discussion (so you must be referring to the world service as well) ,let those many ,many people in many countries contribute if they want the service

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Personally I'd rather have the Beeb acting as a public broadcaster than leave it to the private media who frankly have shown themselves to be irresponsible when it comes to disseminating info and creativity to the country.

Looking at what's been available all across the 100 or so channels I have access to recently I'm afraid the Beeb still wins hands down and because ALL political parties accuse the BBC of bias on a very regular basis I think they are still doing a good job.;)

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

As I said, I was referring to other country's PSB equivalents rather than the BBC specifically. Obviously I should have been clearer in the distinction. So apologies for that.

---------- Post added at 19:52 ---------- Previous post was at 19:45 ----------

Exactly. Plus the fact that they can (and have to) produce such a wide variety of programmes and they can and do do so precisely because of the way they are funded; ie because the do not have to rely exclusively on the commercially-successful programmes.

If we didn't have the BBC we'd only have ITV :eek:

And this :)

Also, I'm sure someone said that "the BBC could shut down tomorrow" and it wouldn't make any difference to anything. Well, apart from all those lost jobs, and the couple of £1bn that the company contributes to the UK economy each year, I suppose they might be right. On the upside, those with transferable skills will certainly be able to get a similar job earning a lot more money ;)

However, in the interests of not going round and round in circles for days on end not getting anywhere, I would like to suggest we leave it there.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

One final post from me, just to put it into perspective a little.

Well, I say "from me". It's a link and quotes of a post over on the DS Forums.

This is the original post

http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.u...Forest_s_ex_MP

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-1692548.html


---------- Post added 27-12-2012 at 00:01 ---------- Previous post was 26-12-2012 at 23:04 ----------

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20844251
"National Audit Office to examine BBC pay-offs"

As with the previous investigation of this type (ie executive pay), I'm sure they will find nothing wrong.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Meanwhile i hope they do, they might think twice next time.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Can't see it sadly. Some people just feel they're 'entitled' no matter what the prevailing economic circumstances. Clearly the way in which the BBC enters in contracts with senior managers is also an issue. If that doesn't change then the payoffs and perks won't either.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Given that, as has been clearly demonstrated, the BBC is no different than any other public sector company in its pay and pay-off systems, what exactly do you think they're going to find? :confused:

Personally, I think the £2m the BBC was forced to waste because some anti-BBC newspapers screamed "cover-up" over the Jimmy Savile 'Newsnight' issue was a bigger waste of money than they industry/public sector-standard pay deals.

A problem which, has also been clearly demonstrated seems to not be confined to the BBC.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

The BBC is not a private enterprise ,it is run using tax money and is accountable to fee payers not share holders .Private companies can pay what they like ,the BBC or any other state run company for that matter can't .I wish you would stop the comparisons as there aren't any ,the BBC is unique and has no viable comparator in the media industry

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

True. But it does have to live and survive in the commercial world of broadcasting.

It already pays lower rates than the commercial sector. You want it to lower it's other benefits too?

"Come and work for the BBC. We don't pay as much as your Final Salary Pension (and other benefits) won't be as high, but we do have a nice Cafe. Oh, yes, but it's in Manchester!"

Sorry. Not good enough! I want my BBC to be staffed by professionals who know what they're doing, not everyone who can't get a job elsewhere.

But I have given you actual figures of what other public sector bosses, etc., are getting (as well as that other "publically-funded" UK broadcaster, Channel 4). IIRC I have only mentioned one 'private company' and they gave their boss £7m when she resigned after breaking the law!!

Exactly. Works both ways though. And, as I said, it has to survive using workers from that same media industry.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

No it doesn't .The bbc gets it's money regardless .Commercial stations have to produce programs that advertisers are willing to pay money to advertise next to ,ones that will grab the audience and so watch the adverts .I they don't, advertisers will pull out, revenue will fall and share holders will kick off ,ultimately the company will fail .To get it's revenue the BBC simply has to produce programs ,if viewing figures fall then the only consequence is a change in manager ,no loss of income at all ,so in reality no competition at all

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Well I meant in terms of staffing, for a start. You think it would get the money if it didn't do it's job well enough? Pretty sure if it got no viewers and wasted every penny it received it would not go down very well with anyone.

Whereas the BBC do not and can therefore take risks with some programming and have a dedicated channel for programmes that may not get a lot of viewers but which is appreciated by many; BBC4.

You know you just made the case for the BBC there, don't you? ;)

Well yes. Apart from that Royal Charter nonsense and it's remit to "inform, educate and entertain" then yes, it can do what it likes :rolleyes:

Yeah. Okay. Well done on completely missing the point though :rolleyes:

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

It's not going down well with ministers at the moment ,hence the investigation

you looked at those channels recently ,BBC 3 and 4 only transmit for a few hours and when they do they are mostly repeats from BBC 1 and old stuff .Less channels and more new content is badly needed ,and i don't mean more reality tv

which means that their remit is to produce quality programs not provide cradle to the grave luxury lifestyles for it's execs at the expense of those quality programs

What point is that then ?you have failed to make a valid one and i just pointed out how it works .

The BBC have a market advantage in that their revenue is guaranteed and only likely to go up in the future ,i feel that program making is suffering so they can overpay their senior management .In my opinion the BBC has to change ,it cannot continue to fund all the new channels ,i player ,HD etc on it's current income and pay the wages it is to the senior management something has to give .

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Which, as with all the previous such investigations, will find nothing out of the ordinary. So another waste of public money.

You have been reading the links and quotes I posted I assume?

I haven't had a detailed, close look, no. Have you or are you just looking at the odd day and assuming?

Good job they don't actually do that then, isn't it?!

I give up. No, really. I have spent the last couple of days making very good points, all of which seem to have been completely ignored. Which doesn't really help in a discussion.

Apart from the recent 16% real-terms cut, you mean? See. You aren't actually reading my responses, are you?

What you 'feel' is completely irrelevant. The fact is that the BBC make far more programmes of a wider range than any other UK broadcaster.

And you are welcome to it.

I'm done here.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Oh how i wish bbc threads just died sorry but it always descends into the same loyal bbc diehards defending it no matter how stupidly (there are some who raise valid points but get lost in the complete rubbish spouted by others) and those who do not want it. My personal views on the bbc have been stated before so not doing it again the fact is go ask staff at other media companys and the bbc is not that highly regarded and often is the butt of jokes and perhaps it is envy but they way the bbc spends money also draws many negative comments. When you get payoffs as high as the bbc has made recently i question the "public sevice" spirit of many of it's high end staff they just seem like snouts in the trough no different to many politicians.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

My issue with the BBC is how they force themselves on you, of course the BBC zealots will say you don't have to pay your licence and dont watch the BBC.

However if you don't pay for a licence because you dont watch the BBC rubbish and you only watch commercial stations you will still be hounded to death by the TLA who will call at your house every week till you give in and pay your TAX.

If the BBC think there product is so good then issue cards to everyone for the freeview boxes and make the BBC a subscription service to the same amount as the licence fee. That way you have the CHOICE if you want to watch the BBC then pay your subscription if you dont then you dont pay and dont watch. This will remove the other argument that they should go to a advert based system.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

:clap:

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

I have promised myself to cancel my TV license in the new year, I watch very little television because I have little time to waste. Live TV doesn't suite my lifestyle so it's rare that I watch a program live. I have watched one BBC program over the Christmas period and I wasn't even at my own home when I was watching it.

Anyone who doesn't wish to watch live TV such as myself needs not have a TV license, not even to watch BBC iplayer if you so wish. TVL deliberately make it unclear to make it look like anyone with a TV needs a license, but this is not the case.

I will be cancelling my direct debit and I will not be filling in and signing their form to cancel that supposedly gives them the right to access to my property! Yeh right:dunce:


ps. I seem to know a lot more people these days who will not pay and are not afraid of TVL

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Whilst i admire your stance on the TVL ,what about when the summons arrives or the enforces enter to check your property holding a magistrates warrant .Simply owning a set or any equipment that can receive live tv transmissions (including phones)requires a licence even if you don't use it .

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

And there is the problem, you have no choice but pay the tax even if you only use you set to receive other channels.

THAT is why i hate the BBC and i will continue to hate them as long as they do not give you the CHOICE.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Look guys. If everyone who doesn't use the service refuses to pay for the Beeb they won't have enough money for such essentials as:

The entirely justified multi-million pound salaries of 'stars' like Jonathan Ross,
Paying Terry Wogan an 'honourarium' to host Children in Need (when apparently he'd happily "do it for nothing") *
Giving George Entwhistle twice what he was entitled to (for doing such a fine job evidently)...

:rolleyes:

* http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6417329.stm

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

No, it doesn't.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

What "mystique" exactly? It's all explained, in detail, on their website :rolleyes:

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

They would still have to attract new subscribers, though. And they could only do that by producing only the most-popular stuff. So there goes BBC4, for example.

So no, neither subscription nor advertising will allow the BBC to continue in it's current remit.

---------- Post added at 20:24 ---------- Previous post was at 20:21 ----------

Yes yes. We can all cherry-pick the one or two things we might not entirely agree with. But two out of three of those are very old news; and the other has been explained for you.

And, of course, the BBC does a whole lot more than that!

---------- Post added at 20:25 ---------- Previous post was at 20:24 ----------

Oh please :rolleyes:

So the system isn't perfect. No-one's ever said it is. So some people like to be damned-awkward just because they can. I have an idea. If people can't co-operate on a voluntary basis, then let's make co-operation with TVL compulsory by law.

Some people advocate a change to paying the TVL through General Taxation. Great. Okay. Then even those without a TV will be paying for it.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Thats not my problem as a tax payer. I want the BBC to move with the times just like all these other companies you keep compering them with have to do. They don't get a tax payout each year they have to perform to get it or they fail. The BBC are just like the old style publicly owned services that could waste money and did not give a toss because they still got there money. The BBC hold there hand out each year and they get there tax money. They then can spend it on programs or waste it on paying off failed members of staff. You can see what they did this year with our tax money :rolleyes:

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Wonder how much the Beeb is paying to have someone generate all that hot air?

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Yes. Exactly the same as every year for the last 80 or so years. All this.

Unfortunately, people do seem to want paying for the work they do :rolleyes:

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

sorry mate but it does , Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003. is quite clear on that

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/part/4

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

It would not surprised if they paid anyway to get the idiots from TVL off there backs.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Quite agree,maybe the solution is to abolish the tv tax* and fund it out of general taxation .

*The tv licence is classed as a tax ,non payment is a criminal offence so why not just merge it with general taxation .

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

There is some video on this forum showing the TVL idiots at work.

---------- Post added at 20:44 ---------- Previous post was at 20:41 ----------

Carl if i don't want to use it WHY am i in essence forced to pay for it via this tax ???

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Then they're idiots. You can easily "get TVL off your back" by co-operating with them. Yes, whether you are required to do so by law or not :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 20:58 ---------- Previous post was at 20:55 ----------

That forum is the worst advert for "anti-TVL" supporters ever. It's a complete laughing stock which no-one in their right mind would take seriously.

In the same way that, even if you don't use Libraries or Schools you are forced to pay for them via a tax. The difference being that if you don't want to watch any live TV? Don't pay the TVL. You can still use catch-up services.

But that's a whole other loop-hole that needs closing ;)

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

That vids been taken down mate,

Thinking about it don't think that general taxation should include the tv licence.General taxation should be reserved for essential services .Therefore subscription is the way forward i feel.We don't force people to pay road tax if they don't own or use a car so why the tv licence which does force people to pay it even if they don't watch BBC channels

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Because you DO want to watch it really don't you... ;)

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Interesting - TV licensing told me it doesn't.

And they seem to say so on their own site.

'TV Licensing will visit a sample of NLC addressesto confirmthat there is no
television in use at that address orthat television receiving equipment at the
address is not usedto receivetelevision programme services. A methodology
will be usedto determine which addresses will make upthe sample for visiting.
This methodology is outlined in Appendix II'

Still - I think £6.06 a moth is well worth it so it doesn't bother me that much ;)

When I did spend two years without a license I didn't get any letters or hassle, but I'm sure a lot if people do.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Then they are wrong ,their site does hint at it with this line from your quote

It is vague and perhaps deliberately so ,but the act of law itself is very clear

---------- Post added at 21:28 ---------- Previous post was at 21:12 ----------

Not that easy, even the TVL site states that letters will not stop permanently and if they send letters then shortly after big ugly gorrilas with come peeping through your windows .

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

A quick search for TV licence harrassment on YouTube yielded some very interesting viewing.

The TV licencing guy @ 9m20s on this video confirms that there's no need to licence a TV which is used solely for viewing DVDs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfHRhXW1hno

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

I know where there is another link to that video;)

---------- Post added at 21:35 ---------- Previous post was at 21:35 ----------

Indeed there are lots of them :)



---------- Post added at 21:40 ---------- Previous post was at 21:35 ----------

What i don't understand is why they have to visit, lets face it they say they can tell what channel you are watching via one of there detector van ;) So if that's the case they do not need to visit and instead just park up out side and use the van. :D

BTW i know the vans are a figment of our imagination and in fact are just vans with detector van written on the side with nothing in them but we have to play the game for Carl. ;)


This video is great and it gives me an idea what to do with all the spam mail i get from companies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g_2iSA76pg

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Again, some would say that a national broadcaster free from commercial pressure is essential.

No. For all the reasons previously stated.

Because it's a TV LICENCE, not a BBC LICENCE.

---------- Post added at 21:59 ---------- Previous post was at 21:57 ----------

Only if you don't respond to the letters :)

---------- Post added at 21:59 ---------- Previous post was at 21:59 ----------

Which is confirmed on the TVL website.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Wrong, the only reason this tax is imposed is to fund the BBC, if the BBC closed tomorrow there would be no need for this tax. So its a BBC tax

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Actually, I'm not. I am, in fact, 100% correct.

Read your TV Licence ;) It doesn't mention the BBC anywhere.

The rest of your statement is moot as it is completely un-provable.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

and nor does the communications act 2003 .The reason why it applies to all tv signal receivers is because it is hard to modify a tv to not receive BBC signals ,the license also covers radio and phones as well ,is it feasible to block just bbc frequencies

Put more simply if a device is capable of receiving 1 channel it will be capable of receiving all of them unless they are encrypted.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Here you go Carl

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-i...pay-for-top13/



---------- Post added at 22:26 ---------- Previous post was at 22:22 ----------

Which is what the BBC should be told to do, that way they will need to produce good television or close, at the moment they produce some good and lots of crap and then just hold the hat out and say "please sir give me some more"

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Just to clarify:

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

I agree.
Don't get me wrong i am a supporter of the principle behind the BBC but i do feel that because of the way it is funded it does just enough to get by .The licence may have been fine and a good way to fund the BBC up to recent times but is now way out of date .
I feel it is falling into the trap of cheap reality tv and endless repeats on the other bbc channels to justify their existence whilst maintaining a standard of living for it's execs that would put the most greedy politician to shame

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Its been like that for a while now.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Just watching some of the threatening TV Licence ads makes me not want to pay it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xkQ6AD3gis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARTIaVBnWzw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq7luWzbouo

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

BIB... very subjective.

I know this one! What you like is "good" and what you don't is "crap", right? Unfortunately for you, it's not all about just what you want or like.

Except that, right now, they're working with around 16-20% less.

---------- Post added at 23:18 ---------- Previous post was at 23:13 ----------

Prove it. Show me what "reality TV" they produce and how many more hours of that they do than anything else.

Again, prove it. Yes, they do repeat stuff on their digital channels. With the current real-word reduction in the LF they have to. But they still produce (and commission) a lot more new programmes than pretty-much any other broadcaster.

Another one that obviously doesn't read my posts.

---------- Post added at 23:19 ---------- Previous post was at 23:18 ----------

And yet BBC1 and BBC2 remain the two most-watched pair of channels from any one broadcaster :)

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

You make it sound like your essential reading, think again :)

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Well it is, in the context of this thread and the quote it was made in reply to.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Some of us make sure the thread is balanced otherwise we would have the sermon according to the book of Carl chapters 1 to 1000

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

And that's what I was doing.

You claimed that the pay of the BBC's "... execs ... would put the most greedy politician to shame. But if you had read the links I posted earlier you would know that this is not the case at all.

That's called balance.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Now that makes sense, i have only ever seen two. One was parked in Morrisons and the other in tesco's.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

BR68 for my Amateur Radio licence states the following:

Note:I believe this includes broadcast transmissions as well as frequency standards such as WWV etc.

Section 363 is I believe deliberately misleading and we are now in a situation where people who have no TV can be led to believe they need a TVL for their mobile phone or computer.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

While I have been told by a friend (who has worked in various media companies) there is a lot of wastage at the BBC, it's worth remembering that in terms of production at least, they are generating a lot of HD (and even 3D) coverage that is then sold on to other broadcasters all over the world.

It's also not fair on the BBC to compare them to Channel 4. The BBC still produce a lot of their own output. Channel 4 doesn't. They act as a conduit for TV from other companies (including BBC productions from time to time).

---------- Post added at 11:26 ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 ----------

Look up the finances of Freeview.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

I don't see what is misleading about

It is a point of law ,believing it is misleading is down you mate but it is very clear and unambiguous ,if you own a device capable of recieving live tv transmissions then you need a licence and that does include mobiles and computers,that is very clear as well

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

That law means that if you only ever watch ITV then the BBC still gets its tax. :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 11:38 ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 ----------

The tv tax was increased to cover for that. The BBC still received the rest of the tax.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Yes it does ,but because the device you only ever watch itv on is still capable of receiving live transmitions from BBC then you have to pay the TVL.That's why it is unfair imo

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

It is obviously misleading and open for interpretation, as the quote differs from what you are saying. You are mentioning Live TV transmissions above, but the quote below you provided from the 2003 act makes no mention of Live TV.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

No it is not ,how does a television receiver, receive non live transmissions,it can't, it can only receive live transmissions .The reason that distinction is made is to make it clear that watching only on demand content does not require a licence .Make no mistake the law is clear

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

I am a bit confused by your reply because a television receiver can of course receive non live transmissions from a DVD player, VHS player, CCTV camera or even an old computer game can be connected to a TV via the antenna socket. UHF modulators are still available for anyone to connect any video device to a TV antenna socket.

The wording of official statements are way behind the technology available. (Or is it deliberately aiming to confuse) The other side of the coin of course is that live TV can be viewed on a computer or mobile phone via the internet, if the BBC have their way we will require a TVL for those devices as well.

The TVL define live transmissions as watching live broadcasts or recording live TV transmissions as they are being broadcasted to watch later.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

so how is that unclear and any different from the wording in the law .A live transmission is a transmission from the BBC transmitter to your tv showing a program as it is being transmitted ,you cannot delay the transmission at the tv/xbox/pc/or any other device ,it is always a live transmission and cannot be delayed .You can record that transmission for later viewing but that means you still received the live transmission and still have to pay the TVL.You appear to be looking for loopholes by means of ambiguity in the wording where none exist .Many have tried before and failed ,some have even ended up in jail for not paying the fine imposed

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

I am not the one looking for loopholes, you now appear to be agreeing with what I have been saying and said in my previous post. A TV licence is not required to view transmissions that are not being broadcasted live, such examples are DVDs, iplayer and any other non-live video content streamed off the internet. (I recall reading somewhere I think on their own website that TVL regard live as up to and including 'something like' 15 mins broadcast delay)

Therefore one could conclude that if I do not watch live TV and have no means of receiving it I do not need a TVL. The problem is that it's not that easy because a PC and mobile phone is also capable of receiving live TV.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Just to clarify

You said it was misleading ,i do not see any ambiguity at all .If you own or use any device capable of receiving live transmissions you need a licence ,yes even a phone or pc that has that capability.We differ in that you see the non inclusion of the phrase "live transmission" in the wording of the act as misleading.It's not included because it is not needed, as transmissions are always live ,you must receive it live in order to record it.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

What a load of rubbish.

Such as?

Which is another good reason for the BBC; so they can (and do) make programmes that commercial broadcasters won't.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Yes It is misleading the act should be clearer and sate the word 'live transmission'. The TVL site does use those words. In fact a transmission can be nothing other than live, and a video signal from a DVD player is a live transmission through a cable.

From TVL

and this

They also say this. (No mention of live broadcast but surely what they mean, but again they like to leave things unclear)

The issue I have with the many statements that can be found is one of deliberate confusion, yes read the parts you want and the answer is there but they have been deliberate in not stating it in one concise paragraph.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

You are going around in circles and contradicting your original stance ,you said .. television receiver can of course receive non live transmissions....,you have just said above that ...In fact a transmission can be nothing other than live,......the latter being correct and what i have said all along and why their is no need to include the phrase in the legislation.Actual legislation is never cut down to a "concise paragraph" because it would not be clear and would leave too many loopholes ,that's why we need trained legal people to understand it sometimes ,however in this case it is simple and concise leaving no confusion.
Anyway this has gone waaaayyyy off topic and the result is you still need a tv licence if you own any device capable of receiving live transmissions

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

We had better agree to differ on that one then, because my interpretation is that capable means having an antenna connected and the channels tuned into the receiver. I do not interpret it as meaning I need a TVL just because I own a TV, PC or mobile phone etc.

The reason for circles over the term live is because live transmission can mean many different things. i.e. The news is live, but Eastenders is not, although both are considered live from a TV broadcast point of view.

I would like to make it clear that I have no intention of viewing live TV without paying for a TVL. My circumstances are that due to work commitment and the amount of time I spend at my partners house means that I have little time at my own house. As a result of this I make best use of this time and reality TV or soaps are not in my opinion valuable use of my time, I prefer to view either DVDs or recently I have been watching university lectures on Academic Earth.

I appreciate my personal circumstances differ from the majority. When I purchased the property 7 years ago I was working away and did not have a TV licence for approx 3 years because any spare time I had was spent doing DIY, I know from experience back then that TVL will not believe that someone can live without TV or even just without live TV.

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

Eastenders is a live transmission of a recorded program .Anything coming from the transmitter to the receiver in your tv/laptop/pc/xbox/phone etc is considered a live transmission it can be nothing else ,unless you are watching on demand content .The law and the way it is written could not be clearer


You don't need to interpret it, it is clear, .You can rip out the receiver in your tv and then you won't need a TVL ,a PC does not need one unless you fit a tv card and so on

Re: 'Austerity' at the BBC
 

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.