> 44000 Households TV Licence Fees spent on New Logos

[Jaymoss]

Over 7 million quid

8 months to get the BBC to issue the freedom of information for this. They tried and tried to get of releasing it

The Logo is barely any different and simply a new font

It is shameful and a scam simple as. Time for them to scrap it

Dunno if this is the right place it is news I guess

The main BBC logo saw changes including “three blocks incorporating the letters BBC will be slightly wider apart and will feature the corporation’s own Reith font”. The font named after the BBC’s founder Lord Reith replaced the existing Gill Sans one.

Money well spent... Not

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/17...tv-licence-fee

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Money well spent... Not

Probably not, but why is it time to "scrap it" ?
The money is already spent, scraping it wont get them a refund.
Since they have paid for it, they may as well get some use out of it.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Paul

Probably not, but why is it time to "scrap it" ?
The money is already spent, scraping it wont get them a refund.
Since they have paid for it, they may as well get some use out of it.

I meant the licence fee full stop

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

I meant the licence fee full stop

Oh gawd, not another licence fee thread....

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Oh gawd, not another licence fee thread....

This one is highlighting a massive waste of money. Thought it might be of interest. The title makes the content obvious you could have easily avoided opening it

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

This one is highlighting a massive waste of money. Thought it might be of interest. The title makes the content obvious you could have easily avoided opening it

I happen to agree on this point. The BBC ought to be held to account in this way. It raises revenue like local government but prefers to behave like a private company. It can’t have it both ways and deserves to have its feet held to the fire.

That said, I still think a national broadcaster funded from a (near) universal charge is the best way of ensuring a basic level of quality and breadth of service in British broadcasting.

[OLD BOY]

I agree with your first paragraph but not your last. Why should we have a licence fee if some don’t make use of the service and when this guaranteed flow of money encourages waste like this? ITV could just as easily act as our national broadcaster. The BBC has become bloated and steadily angers people by its increasing wokery and excessive expenditure, such as the example given by the OP. There are plenty of other examples that have been exposed by the press.

Enough is enough.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I agree with your first paragraph but not your last. Why should we have a licence fee if some don’t make use of the service and when this guaranteed flow of money encourages waste like this? ITV could just as easily act as our national broadcaster. The BBC has become bloated and steadily angers people by its increasing wokery and excessive expenditure, such as the example given by the OP. There are plenty of other examples that have been exposed by the press.

Enough is enough.

ITV is its own explanation for the limits of commercially funded public service broadcasting. Its offering is is just so limited. When you look at the back catalogue of stuff ITV franchisees were making in the 1960s and 70s, where is that content now? They make soaps, reality shows, talent contests and police procedurals. Where is the adventure, fantasy, sci fi, heck even decent local interest programming? Did you know Granada used to produce a brass band competition in northwest England? The reality is that ad-funded broadcasting simply can’t support niche content like that. Gerry Anderson’s iconic puppetry, high concept sci fi like Sapphire and Steel, even action/adventure series like The Saint, The Professionals and The Avengers … all of it commissioned or part-funded by ITV. None of it the sort of stuff ITV is making today.

The benefit of a universal charge is that everyone pays a little and it ensures everyone gets a slice of the pie. It may seem trivial compared to schools and hospitals but the principle is the same. We all pay equally regardless of the extent to which we actually need the resource because we believe the resource is for the greater good of society as a whole.

If you think that broadcasting is just about making the TV shows you like, you won’t get this at all. But public service broadcasting isn’t just about that, and never has been.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

ITV is its own explanation for the limits of commercially funded public service broadcasting. Its offering is is just so limited. When you look at the back catalogue of stuff ITV franchisees were making in the 1960s and 70s, where is that content now? They make soaps, reality shows, talent contests and police procedurals. Where is the adventure, fantasy, sci fi, heck even decent local interest programming? Did you know Granada used to produce a brass band competition in northwest England? The reality is that ad-funded broadcasting simply can’t support niche content like that. Gerry Anderson’s iconic puppetry, high concept sci fi like Sapphire and Steel, even action/adventure series like The Saint, The Professionals and The Avengers … all of it commissioned or part-funded by ITV. None of it the sort of stuff ITV is making today.

The benefit of a universal charge is that everyone pays a little and it ensures everyone gets a slice of the pie. It may seem trivial compared to schools and hospitals but the principle is the same. We all pay equally regardless of the extent to which we actually need the resource because we believe the resource is for the greater good of society as a whole.

If you think that broadcasting is just about making the TV shows you like, you won’t get this at all. But public service broadcasting isn’t just about that, and never has been.

We don't believe it's for the greater good anymore though, two million households have ditched their licences because they don't watch the bbc or live tv and that trend will only grow as the bbc does nothing to entice these people and the ones that follow their lead back, much like newspapers their day is done, it's just a matter of time

Originally Posted by Chris

ITV is its own explanation for the limits of commercially funded public service broadcasting. Its offering is is just so limited. When you look at the back catalogue of stuff ITV franchisees were making in the 1960s and 70s, where is that content now? They make soaps, reality shows, talent contests and police procedurals. Where is the adventure, fantasy, sci fi, heck even decent local interest programming? Did you know Granada used to produce a brass band competition in northwest England? The reality is that ad-funded broadcasting simply can’t support niche content like that. Gerry Anderson’s iconic puppetry, high concept sci fi like Sapphire and Steel, even action/adventure series like The Saint, The Professionals and The Avengers … all of it commissioned or part-funded by ITV. None of it the sort of stuff ITV is making today.

The benefit of a universal charge is that everyone pays a little and it ensures everyone gets a slice of the pie. It may seem trivial compared to schools and hospitals but the principle is the same. We all pay equally regardless of the extent to which we actually need the resource because we believe the resource is for the greater good of society as a whole.

If you think that broadcasting is just about making the TV shows you like, you won’t get this at all. But public service broadcasting isn’t just about that, and never has been.

---------- Post added at 09:02 ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

We don't believe it's for the greater good anymore though, two million households have ditched their licences because they don't watch the bbc or live tv and that trend will only grow as the bbc does nothing to entice these people and the ones that follow their lead back, much like newspapers their day is done, it's just a matter of time

Maybe.But in the meantime can we please accommodate those that do wish to continue with the present arrangements which I find perfectly affordable.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

This one is highlighting a massive waste of money. Thought it might be of interest. The title makes the content obvious you could have easily avoided opening it

You are obvious keen on highlighting waste of taxpayers money. I look forward to your many, many threads on the waste of many, many more millions/billions of taxpayers money by this Government.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You are obvious keen on highlighting waste of taxpayers money. I look forward to your many, many threads on the waste of many, many more millions/billions of taxpayers money by this Government.

And here is a prime example of a troll. Joins into a conversation adding nothing of use to it but having a go at another poster

What do you actually think about the subject I posted about?

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

We don't believe it's for the greater good anymore though, two million households have ditched their licences because they don't watch the bbc or live tv and that trend will only grow as the bbc does nothing to entice these people and the ones that follow their lead back, much like newspapers their day is done, it's just a matter of time

So which is it - that you don’t believe it’s for the greater good or that you don’t watch it?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

So which is it - that you don’t believe it’s for the greater good or that you don’t watch it?

Both, the bbc offers nothing now that's unique except for how it's paid for, which is why people are ditching it in droves

BBC is still an incredible pipeline for British talent though. So many actors, writers, directors, musicians and, often overlooked, technical staff come through it. That is one of the reasons why there are so many British cultural exports and why we have so many new studios being built here for Hollywood and streaming content to be made, the U.K. has an abundance of talent.

I worry we'll just become another dumping ground for American homogenised content and nothing that is unique about British culture or comedy will be commissioned because it's easier to dump us with inoffensive and broad American exports.

Not to mention BBC Local Radio and BBC radio generally which is certainly not all commercially viable but just because BBC Radio Lancashire, for example, isn't profitable is not a reason to dump it. Things have more than a monetary value, something isn't pointless just because it doesn't make a profit for shareholders.

I am not sure if the licence fee can stay around forever but if not alternative public funding needs to be there for the BBC. It should remain publically owned and concerned with producing British talent and public service broadcasting, providing service beyond the bottom line of an accounting book.

Some people in Government seem to think their purpose is to slowly wind down Britain and chip away at the things we're good at and replicate them with multinational companies that make a profit for American venture capitalists in Califonia.