BBC wants to increase licence fee

Originally Posted by Mr K

instead it needs to be free/subsidised for those on Income Support.

No it doesnt.

TV is not a necessity, if they want it, they should pay for it, like the rest of us have to.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Or you’re both watching the same programme, and it’s your viewpoint that interprets what’s being shown...

---------- Post added at 22:26 ---------- Previous post was at 22:18 ----------

Frankly the fact that all parties hate the BBC for bias fills me with comfort. It means that as a Public Broadcasting Company they are managing to walk the line of true neutrality.

[richard s]

Well they to pay Sir Cliff loads of dosh and fund all these so called celebs massive wage bills some how.. don't they.

[djfunkdup]

Originally Posted by richard s

and fund all these so called celebs massive wage bills some how.. don't they.

Hit the nail on the head and that's the bttm line.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by djfunkdup

Hit the nail on the head and that's the bttm line.

However Chris Evans is off to Virgin radio. He'll get paid more than the BBC can offer him ( good riddance imho, he gives me a migraine !). Private broadcasters aren't open to such scrutiny, the BBC is at a disadvantage in that respect.

---------- Post added at 20:22 ---------- Previous post was at 20:19 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul M

No it doesnt.

TV is not a necessity, if they want it, they should pay for it, like the rest of us have to.

Thank you Ebineezer !
Why should rich pensioners get free TV licences then ?

[Taf]

How much of the collected TVL money actually goes to the BBC?

Perhaps handing over more of what is skimmed off by HMG (if it is) is the way forward?

[Carth]

I'm thinking of sending them copies of the TV licenses I've had over the last 10 years . . . just to prove I've already paid once for many of the (repeat) programs on offer

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Taf

How much of the collected TVL money actually goes to the BBC?

Perhaps handing over more of what is skimmed off by HMG (if it is) is the way forward?

I thought the whole thing went to the BBC - they're involved in it's collection rather than HMG.

And there is no VAT on it either.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

I thought the whole thing went to the BBC - they're involved in it's collection rather than HMG.

And there is no VAT on it either.

I believe all our VM sub goes to VM aswell .

Sometimes I think people forget all the extra things the BBC provides, all without advertising. e.g. local and national radio, website. A commercial provider just wouldn't provife these services it if it wasn't profitable and full of adverts.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mr K

I believe all our VM sub goes to VM aswell .

Sometimes I think people forget all the extra things the BBC provides, all without advertising. e.g. local and national radio, website. A commercial provider just wouldn't provife these services it if it wasn't profitable and full of adverts.

l have not forgotten what the BBC provides its just on a few things they need to go back to the basics and start again.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

I thought the whole thing went to the BBC - they're involved in it's collection rather than HMG.

And there is no VAT on it either.

as I understand it it doesn't all go to the BBC. Hence why you are 'forced' to pay it.

Originally Posted by Mr K

I believe all our VM sub goes to VM aswell .

Sometimes I think people forget all the extra things the BBC provides, all without advertising. e.g. local and national radio, website. A commercial provider just wouldn't provife these services it if it wasn't profitable and full of adverts.

I think the majority of folk would want a advert run BBC that has dire programs being aired on it anyway, I cannot remember the last thing I watched on a BBC channel, it is that poor, so I think adverts, rather than pay a hefty yearly fee.

The TV License is an outdated concept and needs to be scrapped-IMHO.

[Onramp]

Surely it would be better to allow competing TV channels with competing viewpoints and unrestricted speech than to try to pretend that we're all paying for one beloved organisation that "always strives to be truly objective".

Unless of course, the point is to want people around the world to think that the state media here is somehow the true voice of objectivity.

Too many adverts? That's what Ofcom is for.

Originally Posted by Mr K

I believe all our VM sub goes to VM aswell .

Sometimes I think people forget all the extra things the BBC provides, all without advertising. e.g. local and national radio, website. A commercial provider just wouldn't provife these services it if it wasn't profitable and full of adverts.

[richard s]

Simples make it law that the broadcasters of all TV and Radio put the adverts in between the programes and not during (i.e. splitting the programe in bits). Then somebody would say to me that companies and products would not bother to advertise (of cause they would).