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.

Headfairy Sorry, but I think you are being naive about the Beeb/ They run a tight ship and get their own way against listeners and viewers You just ry complaining about 5-Live you will be blocked. They seem to have closed their message boards You can send a text which they will ignore unless you flatter the broadcaster try it with Victoria Derbyshire or Shelagh Fogarty (who may be on at this moment) Til 2pm. 5-live seem to hide from listeners
0500 909 693 is there number....its public and free

I don't remember them acting about Jerry Springer's 'The Opera'. There were tens of thousands of complaints, but they went ahead. The people who complained were just licence payers, but they weren't right-on enough.

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-343127/BBC-63-000-viewers-wrong-Springer.html

There is a choice Claig - you can choose not to have a tv just as you can choose to turn your heating off or eat lentils all week - it may not be a palatable choice but it is a choice.

scousy, you're not complaining loud enough, or your complaints aren't felt by enough of a majority to warrant further investigation. Either way there's no conspiracy here. I'm sure the BBC top brass know how much the public sentiment is crucial to keeping the licence fee.

To be fair claig, most of the Jerry Springer complaints turned out to be autodiallers by one small Christian group.

But what about a mobile phone and a PC that is capable of receiving live video streams from Sky and other broadcasters? Shouldn't you be allowed to have one of those in our 'online economy' without having to pay the BBC for the privilege?

agree with op

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the BBC to prove that you watched the BBC on your mobile phone? Should you be jailed if you maintain that you never watched Jeremy Paxman?

claig. I seem to remember the argument at the time was that creative boundaries sometimes have to be pushed or something like that. The Christian Institute tried to bring a private prosecution against the BBC, but both the Magistrates court and eventually the High court refused to issue a summons. Does that not mean in that case that the judiciary decided the complaint wasn't sufficient to warrant prosecution? I'm not sure, I don't know the law, but to me that sounds like the complaint was tested in the courts and they felt it wasn't sufficiently strong enough to bring a case.

I can't remember, but I am highlighting that they can feel free to ignore the wishes of many of their licence payers. But there are other cases where they succumb to pressure.

They didn't ignore, they responded. The Christian Institute didn't like their response. Should the BBC be scrapped because of that?

Not because of that. I think the licence fee should be scrapped because it is uncompetitive and because there are now hundreds of other TV channels available. I think they should carry on but using advertising as a revenue stream. If they want to charge for their services, then it should be at the choice of the viewer. Every citizen should not face imprisonment for not paying them a licence fee to own a mobile phone or PC that is capable of viewing live streams.

I was just showing that your argument that they will listen to thousands of their licence payers' complaints is not true.

Have you seen this? Absolutely unbelievable. "Let them eat cake".

www.newsbiscuit.com/2009/09/16/bbc-admits-going-too-far-with-tv-license-reminder-slogan-your-arse-wont-be-safe-in-prison-368/

"I was just showing that your argument that they will listen to thousands of their licence payers' complaints is not true."

They did listened and didn't agree; should they be held hostage by every single pressure group that tries to censor them or who makes death threats against their executives (as happened in this case)?

Both the Highcourt and Ofcom rejected those nutjobs at Christian Voice's crusade against them showing that musical.

Wow. And we are paying for it

Sorry, just realised that the above link was a spoof story. I fell for it hook line and sinker.

Didn't see the title. thought that was serious for a minute

"Have you seen this? Absolutely unbelievable. "Let them eat cake"."

Oh dear.

Pls tell me you're aware that's a piss take.

Yeah, ok, Chen, they listen to the viewers. Is that why they won't be totally open about their salaries, perks and expenditure as well? Don't you think that the viewers, who pay for it all, would be interested to know?

"Sorry, just realised that the above link was a spoof story. I fell for it hook line and sinker."

You fell for a story but Stoopy De Gunt (!!) that started:

The BBC has admitted it might have gone a step too far with its latest TV license advertising campaign in which it asks if you really want to be the bitch of a twenty stone serial killer with bad breath.

and went on

We tried having Gloria Hunniford smiling and saying ?Remember there are lots different ways to pay,? explained the BBC Director General. ?But our research showed that this was nowhere near as effective as having Terry Wogan saying, ?Listen, do you really want to get bum-raped by a load of tattooed psychos from D wing??

'those nutjobs at Christian Voice' just pay their wages, that's all.

Headfairy - I appreciate you may work in the industry but frankly the BBC is still sexist. American broadcasters (who have to make a profit) manage to employ plenty of older women. Moreover, the BBC have a moral duty (because the have no problem taking money from old women) to stop being so pathetically sexist. It is repugnant.

Moreover, more than 50% of new doctors are women - in a job with long anti-social hours.

I hugely resent paying £145 for a TV license so hundreds of staff can backslide into the festivals and major events. My son watches CBBC but back to back programming of Sarah Jane, MI High, etc,etc hardly warrants the entire nation being held to ransom over it. Mind you I may have to rethink my position given the sheer quality that is Horrible Histories...no contradiction there then...BBC it is time to float your boat and go it alone methinks.

"'those nutjobs at Christian Voice' just pay their wages, that's all."

And so do a wide variety of other nutters and pressure groups, should the BBC be censored and held hostage to a tiny minority every time someone takes offence?

The complaints for that programme were huge. They don't often get compaints if that size. The 'nutjobs' weren't happy about this

'The musical featured a nappy-wearing Jesus declaring he was "a little bit gay", and described Mary as being "raped by an angel, raped by God".

But the BBC disagreed. they said

'"The BBC is committed to freedom of expression, and has a duty to innovate, to reflect new and challenging ideas, and to make available to its audiences work of outstanding artistic significance.
"In all the circumstances, the outstanding artistic significance of the programme outweighed the offence which it caused to some viewers and so the broadcasting of the programme was justified."

'The Church of England said it was disappointed by the outcome and said the programme had caused "significant offence".'

But the Church of England are probably a load of 'nutjobs' too.

Do you think teh BBC would have broadcast anything as offensive if it were about the Muslim religion? Do you think they would have said it had "outstanding artistic significance"?