TO SAY I LIKE THE BBC....but the near £300 license fee needs questioning..Lets question

[ScousyFogarty]

BBC and COMPULSORY LICENSE FEE...(Paid by rich and poor alike.)

It has been suggested that the Beebs automatic cash-flow from rich and poor, should be looked at as the fee gets closer to £300 a year.

Victoria Derbyshire mentions this on her TWITTER site. (Dont know if she has ever done it on her programme.?)

You will notice that when a big name has a book out; they get interviewed on many BBC TV and radion shows. (They are usually rich and could be charged a fee for the free book plug.)

There will be many other ideas as to how the license could be REDUCED or the money RAISED by other means.

Do you have any ideas. ? Or are we going to sit back and watch the license fee go to £300 a year? (Its food for thought.

Victoria Derbyshire and Gabby Logan may well have ideas on this . Ask them if you feel like doing so.

They need to re-name it.
karma if you are already paying £30/40/50 a month then I don't see that the licence is that much extra. I think that you are forgetting all the non-TV benefits that you get like radio, the BBC website, all the support they do for education (bitesize, open university, etc), support for the Arts.
I don't think that the internet would be what it is in Britain (miles ahead of many other countries) if it wasn't for the involvement of the BBC.

But aren't the BBC partially behind the UKTV and Living channels? Which are pay channels. Which advertise? Of course I might be wrong...

There's many ways of placing products.

I do resent the fee. I resent some overpaid fucker smarming all over the place knowing I've paid their wages. We watch bare minimum BBC, but what pisses me off the most is their rather high-handed approach to it all. That and the fact that they think they are above reproach. The way they handled my complaint was condescending and rude and they will not accept that a dismembered corpse, pre-watershed on a Sunday night on BBC1 is not acceptable. I would expect that on the horror channel. Not on a terrestrial channel.
Then they about faced and agreed that some television content was contributing to a breakdown in society. But not theirs, obviously. Because it's posh, innit?

On the other hand. MmmmMMMmmmmm. Doctor Who...

katvond if you truly don't mind then that's okay. Personally, I do mind. I don't get this thinking that people just accept things because that's the way it is. If no one ever objected to anything that they considered unfair, then nothing would ever get changed for the better.

I love you too Claig mwah :)

CLAIG you have been asked to suggest your idea of salaries for named BBC
personalities. You have so far avoided the question.

If you have a TV you pay these stars with your £145 a year license fee,

Why have you no ideas about what they should be paid.? No sense of fairness...no sense of conscience about people having to pay the license fee(Even on minimum wage) Cameron would duck this question. CLAIG you have no good reason to duck and abuse; to fudge ,fart and run a way. Go for it.

I will start. WOGAN is a multi millionaire .Gabby Logan is rich,, I would let Wogan do his BBC 2 self advertisment; but not pay him. Gabby Logan? I would pay her what a schoolteacher or doctor gets... Somewhere between
30K and l00k a year. (Wogan and Logan get much more than that.)

Very good points, Lunabelly.

I will read you later luna...Claig has some serious thinking to do

R4 it's not about the money, it's about the freedom to choose. I tend not to listen to BBC radio or use the website. I tend to think that supporting the arts is something people should choose to do, or not. I don't think the government should make me.

In my opinion, all of their presenters should be on less than £40,000. If they don't like it, let them leave and see how much they could earn in the real world. There will be a queue of people to take their place. Some people who are currently out of work could easily do teh same job.

I got Sky TV purely for Sky Atlantic so I can watch HBO / AMC etc programming but I have to pay for Ross Kemps deadliest gang warfare crap as well as hundreds of hours of stuff other people enjoy. I'm not whinging about subsidising other people's televisual enjoyment tho. Being a southerner I'm also unlikely to ever visit most of the state subsidised gallery's up North but I understand their value and don't begrudge the money spent.

I've got friends who claim to watch no BBC output but somehow despite this manage to join in conversations about the apprentice or other BBC shows that they 'never watch'. Funny that.

tbh I wish people still got this excited about our governments illegals middle eastern escapades as they did about the BBC, now that really is taxpayers money being burnt, by the billions.

I'd like to get rid of the licence fee. I'd like general taxes to go up by £145 per year or whatever to replace it. Taxing TVs just confuses people.

Karma I accept it as there's naff all I can do about sadly. As I said before I love watching telly. We hardly watch freeview, BBC or ITV everything we like is on Sky. I worked out what we had watched on BBC this week, one program on Monday about Egypts lost cities.
I do see your point Karma and it's would be great if somehow you could BBC channels off and not have to pay for a licence. Somehow I can't ever see that happening.

and all savings made can be passed on to old age pensioners and poor people who are paying for them.

With issues like this I put up and shut up :)

The reason you cant pay for sky and the bbc seperately is that sky has a different delivery system - how on earth would the BBC ensure that you are not watching any BBC output on tv or online/listening to any BBC radio station/going to a prom/radio 1 festival/arts event.

The BBC's overall output cannot be unwoven from the UK's cultural life as a whole - therefore it is assumed that if you have a tv then you are utilising it. Really its the radio/pc owners who dont have a tv that are getting a great deal.

Fwiw Chen I do get as excited by our governments behaviour in other parts of the world as I do about the licence fee.

I think with the Ross Kemp thing, you've chosen to pay for Sky, warts and all (sorry Ross).

Claig 40k?

Ok, 20K then

That'll reduce teh amount people on mimimum wage have to pay the 'stars'

"If they don't like it, let them leave and see how much they could earn in the real world. There will be a queue of people to take their place. Some people who are currently out of work could easily do the same job."

Yes, of course. We go down to the job centre and find somebody who fancies having a crack and hosting a light entertainment show. Why did nobody think of that before? A random Wayne Smith is obviously going to be just as good as Ross, Norton, Fry or Logan isn't he? Who needs skills or ability when you can get some bloke in off the street?
I also suggest getting rid of Trident missiles. I've got some rocks in my garden I could chuck at any commies I see coming. Healthcare?! I could do operations! I'll just go get my can opener and stapler...

I think £40,000 is a reasonable salary for a TV presenter. I'd do it for that . There are people in society whose jobs are essential to the smooth running of the country, who get far less than that. Dustman or Jonathan Ross? I know who I'd miss the most if they didn't turn up for work one day.

There are lots of people who are capable of presenting a TV show. Fewer who could perform open heart surgery. I don't think TV presenting is that skilled a job. Ex footballers do it.

50p a day for Jonathan Ross.

I'm one of these so called 'poor'. I live in what is considered fuel poverty and I don't think the tv licence is awful. 40p a day? Bargain when you think what you'd pay for a dvd or internet. You get a choice of channels, radio, websites etc.

When I first moved to this house the only channels my tv ariel could get were bbc2 and channel 4 and a fuzzy bbc1. ITV didn't work and channel 5 didn't register.
After several years I managed to afford to get the ariel fixed so they all worked and we have most of the freeview channels as well. We have plenty to watch. I still avoid ITV mostly though do enhoy shows like Morse.

For me it's QI, HIGNFY, newsnight, panorama, BBC news, wonderful comedy programs and the like. I hate reality tv and avoid soaps.
Ds has been an avid fan of Cbbc (and cbeebies before that) and we regularly use the bbc bitesize websites. I feel we more than get our money's worth. I can't afford sky and I don't feel we are missing anything.

Having experienced American tv I would gladly keep paying for the license. The incesent ads are beyond belief. In the states I resorted to watching BBC/british shows as the US content was so dire. the most laughable experience was when I asked a friend to video morse as I was going to be out. HE set the recorder for an hour. He was genuinely shocked that a tv program which wasn't a film could be more than an hour long, and that was without advert!

I think Norton is probably worth his salary though