permalink for this thread :
jax_1 Posted on 10/7 23:04
Telly Licences

Bearing in mind that the Beeb can afford to pay Johnathan Ross 16M and several of the bosses have just had rises that now gives them an annual wage of 609,000 for the D.G. and 276,000 for Caroline Thomson and 295,000 for jenny Abromsky ( director of radio and music)
Is it time to have a full review of how or whether a licence fee should be paid?
Should the Beeb take more advertising? Or should things stay as they are?
Or do you think we are getting good value for money?

profitt Posted on 10/7 23:08
re: Telly Licences

Jonathan Ross won't get 16 million. That may well be the total budet for his shows(which is still a hell of a lot) but he won't have a 16 million salary.

The BBC show commercials in other countries though. I don't know why they don't do it here. I know the licence fee is a guaranteed income but they're a massive brand and could make just as much without it.

craig_pancrack Posted on 10/7 23:12
re: Telly Licences

After living in Canada /USA, the Beeb is something to behold. I gladly pay the license fee to keep it commercial free. Its like the NHS not perfect but superior by far to the American way, which happens to the way of most of the world.

DrBuck Posted on 10/7 23:17
re: Telly Licences

Couldn't someone invent a television that doesn't receive BBC channels? Then I wouldn't have to put up with the sight and sound of that obnoxious twerp.

jax_1 Posted on 10/7 23:18
re: Telly Licences

But Craig would you at least make it cheaper for those in poverty at all?

Prof, I think I also read somewhere lately, that the Beeb have something like 83 billion in the pot to spend on buying overseas channels and magazines, etc.

JLinardi Posted on 10/7 23:30
re: Telly Licences

Instead of adverts they should just promote brands in shows and get money for it.

Phil goes into the cafe in Eastenders and says to Ian:

Phil: Awight Ian im prached i need a good drink

Ian: Awight Phil why dont you try this BRAND NEW COCA COLA ZERO WITH NO ADDED SUGAR

Phil: Yea that'll do how much

Ian: 60p


jax_1 Posted on 11/7 0:24
re: Telly Licences

Dr Buck, if you mean Jonathan Ross. I wholeheartedly agree! I don't like him much at all.

JLin, I'm sure they could do all sorts of things like that, that would help to get some revenue in and reduce the burdon on those that have a hard time paying for the licence fee, as it stands now.
Btw, that was a better script than the writers tend to come up with. Have you thought of sending them some stuff

jeff_potato Posted on 11/7 0:28
re: Telly Licences

I just feel the money is wasted on presenters.

All talkshow hosts are identical, asking the same questions in the same format. Sycophancy enforced by the guests.

Radio One just takes the biscuit, I could sit a gibbon down in Broadcasting House and it'd have more musical knowledge and charisma than the day shift there put together.

jax_1 Posted on 11/7 0:33
re: Telly Licences

Jeff I know what you mean. There doesn't seem to be many mavericks as far as interviewers/presenters are concerned. Paxman is just about the only one. Occasionally David Dimbleby puts on his 'cross look' when he is doing Question Time but not very often and he still manages to be quite sheepish at the same time

Radio 1 - I can't comment, so I'll take your word for it. I never listen to it. If I'm in the car it's always Century or TFM ( or the cd) at home, I only use the radio to listen to the footy if I can find it.

jeff_potato Posted on 11/7 0:48
re: Telly Licences

I'd given up on the radio entirely but since getting a DAB Digital Radio, Xfm has re-affirmed my belief that good DJs exist. Lauren Laverne, I salute you!

I suppose what the BBC did with the big screens in cities this summer was a good use of the licence fee, but I cannot see how the BBC justify their massive spend on what they consider talent.

Their London base is glaring in everything they do because at times they're just so out of touch with the nation. I also deeply lament their news style after the latest revamp. God only knows why they've stooped to ITN's level.

jax_1 Posted on 11/7 0:57
re: Telly Licences

I find it annoying that they seem to just showcase their pets, Lenny Henry, Dawn French, those girls in Birds of a feather, etc. Doesn't matter what you seem to put on, one of them will turn up in it.
A bit too much political correctness at times too. For instance, they now find that They Think It's All Over is sexist and doesn't attract enough viewers of the female variety. I know loads of women that think it's great - myself included. I think they have decided to stop making it altogether now anyway.
and why are they still spending money on making Eastenders It's an awful programme - very depressing to say the least.

I have always preferred ITN news or SKY to be honest. I find that the way the BBC have dumbed down/ sterilised the news to suit politicians isn't what it should be doing. It should be there to educate not pander to someones whims of the day, but is failing miserably.

The screens may well have been a very good idea but would only account for a very small fraction of Beeb expenditure for the year. Less than the D.G.'s wages I should think.
It just seems to me that, a lot of people are paying for something that they can't afford but are being taken advantage of because they don't have the option not to buy a licence, unless they don't have a telly at all.

jeff_potato Posted on 11/7 1:00
re: Telly Licences

I paid the TV licence over the phone last week, incidentally, because I didn't want the CCTV footage of my rage in the Post Office to be broadcast on Crimestoppers.

The sheer amount of money which they demand astounds me. Surely no other company in Britain gets to levy a tax upon the population with Her Majesty's law enforcement to back them up?!

jax_1 Posted on 11/7 1:07
re: Telly Licences

Indeed so Jeff, extortion I call it to be honest. I know people that are in a desperate state of poverty and living hand to mouth as it is, without having to find such a large sum of money to pay for what is sometimes the only relief they have from the stresses and burdons of life but they risk being fined and sent to jail for non payment. It's ok for politicians on their wages but they should try living on Income Support or minimum wage for a while, they might find out that life at the bottom of the ladder is not a bed of roses.

boro_steve Posted on 11/7 1:32
re: Telly Licences

If they can't afford the licence how can they afford a TV Jax?

jax_1 Posted on 11/7 1:37
re: Telly Licences

Now that is a good question Steve.
I assume some peeps still use things like Telly-Bank, I could be wrong though.
There certainly doesn't seem to be the amount of rental shops that there used to be anyway, oh and there's that place on Linny Road where you pay weekly for furniture and stuff, not sure what it's called. Then there's catalogues I spose.

boro_steve Posted on 11/7 1:39
re: Telly Licences

If they can afford that can't they afford to pay their TV Licence in installments then?

The TV Licence is extremely good value for money and you only have to look at channels like ABC1 to see why we do not want to go to the American method of having millions of adverts!

jax_1 Posted on 11/7 1:45
re: Telly Licences

You can only pay in installment via Direct Debit. A lot of these people don't have bank accounts that allow for that, if at all.

boro_steve Posted on 11/7 1:46
re: Telly Licences

Well perhaps they should get a bank account!

boro_steve Posted on 11/7 1:49
re: Telly Licences

Oh and they can pay in installments in cash at paypoint outlets!

No excuse then.

jax_1 Posted on 11/7 1:50
re: Telly Licences

Not that easy for those on benefits. The government did bring out a scheme but it's in a bit of a state of dissarray. People have sent off the forms but are still waiting, 6 months down the line.
I get the impression you find it easy to afford - I could be wrong but that's great if you can. Just it seems a harsh tax to add onto peoples already overstretched budgets if they are not well off financially. Having a telly isn't much to ask for in life I don't think.

boro_steve Posted on 11/7 1:51
re: Telly Licences

If they can't afford it they can't afford it. A TV is a luxury not a basic necessity of life.

jax_1 Posted on 11/7 1:55
re: Telly Licences

Well the poor souls don't often have much else!

boro_steve Posted on 11/7 1:57
re: Telly Licences

Tough benefits are there to give people the basics of life, not luxuries, if they can afford it by scrimping and scraving then fine, if not then it's not a human right and they should be grateful they live in a country where they have benefits and not somewhere like the US where benefits are virtually non-existant!

jax_1 Posted on 11/7 2:02
re: Telly Licences

and what about the likes of pensioners, we still owe a lot of them a very great debt, without a lot of them, we wouldn't have a country at all and we can't allow them the privilige of having a telly?
How about the sick and infirm?

boro_steve Posted on 11/7 2:06
re: Telly Licences

Pensioners get their licence for free already.

Again, benefits are there to provide for the necessities, TV is not a necessity! There are ways for them to pay in installments, either by bank account or by paypoint.

Tough luck if they won't open a bank account or sort out the paypoint card.

Why should the taxpayer pay for luxuries for people on benefits?

jax_1 Posted on 11/7 2:10
re: Telly Licences

Only those over a certain age and the blind still have to pay a fair bit.

I really hope that you never fond yourslef in that position Steve. You know, life on benefits is no picnic, it provides an existence for some, not a life, just an existence. Yes there are those who are scroungers or who could do a bit more to help themselves but there are also an awful lot of people, genuine cases that deserve a bit more sympathy.

My bedtime now I think, so I'll answer any further points tomorrow.

boro_steve Posted on 11/7 2:11
re: Telly Licences

If I did find myself in such a position I'd be mindful of the fact that others are paying my way and not be asking for luxuries!

rkangel Posted on 11/7 10:31
re: Telly Licences

I think the licence fee is brilliant value for money. I'd pay it just for Radios 3, 4 and the World Service myself.There's no way the likes of Sky/Fox/TimeWarner would provide the standard and variety of TV, Radio and internet that the BBC does for 120 quid a year. The worrying thing right now is not the pay hikes for executives but the slow denudation of its constitution.

StevieT Posted on 11/7 10:39
re: Telly Licences

Agree totally with rkangel. Radio 4 alone is worth the entire fee, and I'd have paid them an extra 120 cash for two cassettes of Radio 2's 'Sold on Song' live performances of Sir Paul and Ray Davies.

grantus Posted on 11/7 10:39
re: Telly Licences

BBC should be scrambled and only available to those who pay a fee.

jax_1 Posted on 11/7 10:42
re: Telly Licences

but do you guys think it's a fair financial burdon to put on people bearing in mind the wage increases some of the managers have had?

rkangel Posted on 11/7 10:47
re: Telly Licences

I pay a tenner a month for my bank account and I'm sure the directors of the bank earn more than Mark Thomas and his colleagues, and I engage with the BBC far more than I do with the bank. I don't worry as much about what the bank are doing with my money as much as I think I have a right to express an opinion about what the BBC are doing with my licence fee. Maybe I should. The fact that we all feel we own the BBC is brilliant in my book.

--- Post edited by rkangel on 11/7 11:00 ---

jax_1 Posted on 11/7 10:49
re: Telly Licences

At least you could change you bank if you are not happy with the service you get though. We are stuck with the BBC regardless of whether we agree with the way it's being run.

Buddy Posted on 11/7 10:53
re: Telly Licences

jax you're talking an extremely high degree of bollox on this subject I'm afraid. Radio 4 and the Natural History Unit alone are worth 2 per week of anybody's money.

rkangel Posted on 11/7 10:58
re: Telly Licences

I have to say that there generally isn't a week goes by when I'm not bowled over by something on the BBC. They'll keep producing celebrity/property/ tat because that's what the market is apparently calling for but they'll also produce "Blackadders", "Funlands" "League of Gentlemans", "Coasts", "Horizons" etc which will always be interesting, challenging and way better than anything Rupert wants to bring to our screens. And I'll take BBC News 24 with all its flaws over the increasingly Fox like SkyNews.

jax_1 Posted on 11/7 11:03
re: Telly Licences

Goodness me Buddy, you're not mincing words this morning are you?

I'm just playing devils advocate a bit. I can see both sides. My licence is paid by D.D. every month so no large one off bill every year and for me, you can keep your radio progs but the stuff they turn out with David Attenbrough is more than worth it's money.
I do however, think a little bit of the burdon could be taken from the viewer by accepting money for the advertising that they do.

craig_pancrack Posted on 11/7 11:04
re: Telly Licences

regarding scrambling the signal to licence payers only to save those who could not afford it...would mean poorer people and their poor kids being deprived of more quality / class and being blitzed with commercial brainnumbing poison from ITV.

rkangel Posted on 11/7 11:09
re: Telly Licences

They do take some finance from advertising on the UK channels and abroad. I hear they're also going to accept some low level advertising on their website. But I would never want to see commercials on the main channels. Give BBC radio a try for a month. I guarantee you'll be addicted and never want to go back to Century/TFM. Only this morning Sarah Harmon's "On The Ropes" interview was probably clearer and more informative than anything I might have read about her or seen on the news.

neiltrodden Posted on 11/7 11:10
re: Telly Licences

What advertising do they do???

rkangel Posted on 11/7 11:13
re: Telly Licences

They part own UKGold etc. I think they receive monies from advertising there. I seem to recall a bit of a hoo hah when these channels were set up.

jax_1 Posted on 11/7 11:17
re: Telly Licences

Sorry guys got to dash out for a meeting in a mo. Will pick up your points when I get back.

neiltrodden Posted on 11/7 11:17
re: Telly Licences

There's a separate part of the bbc that resells repeats abroad on and ukgold to generate revenue. The fee would be higher otherwise I suppose. I'd just like to keep bbc advert/sponsor free.

rkangel Posted on 11/7 11:22
re: Telly Licences

Yeah, I thought BBC Enterprises were a part holder of UKTV. I might well be wrong, but I seem to recall a major debate about the BBC then receiving funds from advertising which would be contrary to its constitution. But I agree I want it to remain advert free.

guyb Posted on 11/7 11:25
re: Telly Licences

Your 2.30 a week or 33p a day pays for the following:

BBC Three
BBC Four
BBC Parliament
BBC News 24
Radio 1
Radio 2
Radio 3
Radio 4
Radio 5 Live
6 Music
Radio 1Xtra
5 Live sports Extra
BBC Asian Network
Radios Scotland, Wales, Ulster, Cymru, Foyle, Nan Gaidheal and
40 BBC local radio and tv stations

oh and the best website in the world -

You can already watch a few tv shows online now, with practically all of the radio output on listen again. Later on this year, they will launch the BBC Player which is the tv equivilant of listen again.

That is ANY BBC tv programme from the past seven days can be downloaded and watched again at your conveniance.

Throw in mobile tv, mobile internet, the World Service, BBC America (if you live there).

Look at the usual suspects who line up to crow against the BBC. Every single one of them is in it for their own commercial interest (ITV, Murdoch etc.)

We have very few world class institutions left in this country and I for one would hate to see it turned over to the vagaries of the market under the guise of "free choice".

33p a day?
I'd pay double.

rkangel Posted on 11/7 11:28
re: Telly Licences

*tips hat in agreement and admiration.*

Buddy Posted on 11/7 11:36
re: Telly Licences

rkangel - less admiration, it is actually his job to say that

Capybara Posted on 11/7 11:36
re: Telly Licences

guyb Posted on 11/7 11:37
re: Telly Licences

it was Buddy, I'm just a punter now like the rest.

Although I will throw one more nugget into the ring. Yes JR costs the BBC 17m a year but for that you get the tv show, the radio show, film 2006 and anything else he wants to do.

Celebrity Love Island has cost 20m...

sparkins Posted on 11/7 11:39
re: Telly Licences

I certainly never begrudged paying the TV licence for the same reason as many above have mentioned. I travel throughout europe with work and have lived abroad for several years during my life and the dross that is on TV overseas is just mind blowing.

In the 'good old days' when the BBC funded about 5 radio channels, plus local radio, plus the two TV channels it seemed like there was enough to go around to make high quality documentaries and drama, but now there are so many minority interest digital channels, that same pot is being stretched to the point that the quality of output is now scandalously low across all channels.

rkangel Posted on 11/7 11:39
re: Telly Licences

with nary a celebrity

rkangel Posted on 11/7 11:39
re: Telly Licences

double post

--- Post edited by rkangel on 11/7 11:40 ---

Buddy Posted on 11/7 11:45
re: Telly Licences

Didn't know that guy, welcome to the outside. As you know I agree with you 100% on the substantive issue.

boredreceptionist Posted on 11/7 12:08
re: Telly Licences

If the BBC had adverts it would spoil films like they do on the other channels.

jax_1 Posted on 11/7 15:13
re: Telly Licences

Like I said, I'm just out to play devils advocate but as regards advertising. How much free publicity did Slazenger get via the Wimbledon broadcasts this year and same goes for the sponsors names on the hoardings during the W.C. Why shouldn't they pay for that?
There is also a bit of product placement during programmes that could be paid for too.

I also take Sparkins point about things starting to appear to be spread too thinly.

and Guy as for you comment about JR " and anything else he wants to do."
Tell me it ain't so? That is an horrific thought, get the fool out of there!

What about the fact that peeps can be jailed for non payment of the licence. Are you all in favour of that. Don't any of you think that's a bit harsh?

rkangel Posted on 11/7 15:19
re: Telly Licences

Not sure about gaol, but take their remotes off them so the fat sweaty couch cows have to get up and exercise a little to change channel.

Buddy Posted on 11/7 15:29
re: Telly Licences

Depends whether they've got a television. If not, then yes, prison is on the harsh side. If they have, they know the penalties when they start.

Corcaigh_the_Cat Posted on 11/7 15:30
re: Telly Licences

I'm a big fan of the beeb. ITV and Channel 5 have absolutely nothing to offer. C4 has some decent stuff on. I'm happy paying what I pay to keep the adverts off the screens.

When it comes to wages though, don't they enjoy lining their own pockets when it comes to the boys at the top.

I hear it's no longer an equal opportunities employer.

--- Post edited by Corcaigh_the_Cat on 11/7 15:31 ---

CleveleysSmoggie Posted on 11/7 15:45
re: Telly Licences

They could save money.
Why for example are there three sets of commentators and pundits for football matches.
Eg, Boro v Blackburn will have Radio Cleveland, Radio Lancashire and Radio 5. Plus a TV commentator.

boro_steve Posted on 12/7 22:06
re: Telly Licences

The whole point is they don't want to do that as it provides a poorer service, local radio coverage of sports is supposed to be partisan!

--- Post edited by boro_steve on 13/7 1:04 ---