Tv Licence fee rise.

#2
NotmeChief said:
On the 1st April the telly licence fee rises yet again, I suppose they need the rise so 'we' can pay the £25m required for this:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91248-1307873,00.html
This £25m will come out of the Foreign Office budget. I support what they are doing. The VoA and Al Jazeera already have too much influence in the Mid East and have been using TV broadcasts to widen their viewing base. If HMG wants more influence in the region this is a cost-effective way of doing so.

The real tragedy is the FO's shortsightedness and wishful thinking about Russia. The BBC used to have an excellent, highly regarded World Service broadcast which they scrapped a few years ago, against advice, to save a few million pounds a year. As Russia slides into dictatorship again we have no dedicated broadcasting unit addressing the issues with experienced, well-informed staff. They were made redundant!
 

Tanzi

Lantern Swinger
#3
Downunder we don't have a licence fee but we do have crap tv. Mostly US and UK re-runs. Today's fare, I kid you not: The Royal, George and Mildred, The Good Life, Keeping Up Appearances, My Family, Doc Martin, The Bill, Spooks and Wire In The Blood. We may be ahead of the UK with Neighbours but we're behind with everything else.(George and friggin Mildred for pity's sake!)
 
#4
Tanzi said:
Downunder we don't have a licence fee but we do have crap tv. Mostly US and UK re-runs. Today's fare, I kid you not: The Royal, George and Mildred, The Good Life, Keeping Up Appearances, My Family, Doc Martin, The Bill, Spooks and Wire In The Blood. We may be ahead of the UK with Neighbours but we're behind with everything else.(George and friggin Mildred for pity's sake!)
I would love to see some of those older programs again, all we seem to get here is the same old crap. Vote for this, celebrity that, makeover your shit house, update your wardrobe and other rubbish.
 
#5
We have no license fee in Spain either, but we do tend to have more adverts between programs to make up for it. TBH I can't see how it's fair that the other main UK terrestrial channels don't get a cut of the license fee.

After all, the BBC no longer follows it's mandate to the British people.
 
#6
I suggest that the licence fee be reduced to £52 a year. The BBC to return to it's old job of informing and entertaining. So BBC present news and current affairs programs plus reasonably priced entertainment. Get rid of Rossie and other celebrity financial liabilities Leave the expensive programs like football to the commercial organisations. This way the commercial programs and the BBC would not be bidding against each other so prices would fall. The BBC could then concentrate on reporting minority sports which would cost little to produce. this could even include second and third division football.
 

toycommandos

Lantern Swinger
#8
I agree! If they are going to have all these new channels then they need to start making more programs with our money, rather than wasting it on flying their correspondents to France first class to highlight the issues terminal 5 are having.

Less channels and more original programs, only then will i be happy with a rise in the TV license.
 

pastrdp

Lantern Swinger
#9
I was staggered a couple of weeks ago listening to the Chris Evans show to hear them discussing visiting the BBC's dentist in London, and all of the other celebs they bumped into while there. How does maintaining a dentist and surgery in London for BBC staff out of our licence fee improve the product they generate for us out of licence fee.
 
#10
That last one is simple you would all be outraged if your news presenters and other presenters had yellow teeth whilst on TV, and it saves them calling out a dentist, which would cost even more.

This is just scare mongering by Murdoch's Sky, and I trust the BBC much more than I trust Murdoch.
 
#11
Potential_Officer said:
That last one is simple you would all be outraged if your news presenters and other presenters had yellow teeth whilst on TV, and it saves them calling out a dentist, which would cost even more.

This is just scare mongering by Murdoch's Sky, and I trust the BBC much more than I trust Murdoch.

Saves who calling out a dentist, the presenter or the BBC?
Can't see why the the BBC is responsible for presenters teeth, where do you draw the line? Now if everyone who works for the BBC were given the perk of free dental treatment (from the cleaners down to the DG) then perhaps I would be more sympathetic. How would it be if only officers received free dental treatment in the services?
As for being outraged, I am more outrages at the inflated salaries paid to personalities than the condition of their teeth.
Havn't heard such a load of bollocks for yonks! :pukel:
 
#12
pastrdp said:
How does maintaining a dentist and surgery in London for BBC staff out of our licence fee improve the product they generate for us out of licence fee.
Compare that with the RN, which employs quite a few doctors and dentists, pays them extra by rank for being doctors and dentists, then lets them do the same job as very many of their general service administrative equivalents while still paying them the premium, even though they are no longer practising! Daft? You betcha, but it's exactly the same in the Army and RAF.
 
#13
thingy said:
NotmeChief said:
On the 1st April the telly licence fee rises yet again, I suppose they need the rise so 'we' can pay the £25m required for this:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91248-1307873,00.html
This £25m will come out of the Foreign Office budget. I support what they are doing. The VoA and Al Jazeera already have too much influence in the Mid East and have been using TV broadcasts to widen their viewing base. If HMG wants more influence in the region this is a cost-effective way of doing so.

The real tragedy is the FO's shortsightedness and wishful thinking about Russia. The BBC used to have an excellent, highly regarded World Service broadcast which they scrapped a few years ago, against advice, to save a few million pounds a year. As Russia slides into dictatorship again we have no dedicated broadcasting unit addressing the issues with experienced, well-informed staff. They were made redundant!

Won't the BBC just transmit biased pro Arabic drivel anyway? Why change policy just for a new channel? Hardly gaining the influence in the region that you suggest is it Thingy?

Regards
IDOITDEEPER
 
#14
I read somewhere that the Office of National Statistics has reclassifed the Licence fee as a TAX.

Also Channel 4 as owned by us the tax payer is part funded by the TV licence TAX.
 
#15
Daylight robbery from the BBC. I suppose they are trying to make-up the money they paid out to get the rights to F1 back. At least from next year there will be no ads in the middle of the racing. Wossie aint worth 18m either.
 
#16
Tanzi said:
Downunder we don't have a licence fee but we do have crap tv. Mostly US and UK re-runs. Today's fare, I kid you not: The Royal, George and Mildred, The Good Life, Keeping Up Appearances, My Family, Doc Martin, The Bill, Spooks and Wire In The Blood. We may be ahead of the UK with Neighbours but we're behind with everything else.(George and friggin Mildred for pity's sake!)

What happened to Skippy?
:w00t: :w00t: :w00t:
 
#17
I think you, in the UK, should all pay more to the BBC so they can afford to produce more good and expensive programs which would then force ITV et-al to stop dumbing down even more than they have.

Then I can watch even better UK programs in SPAIN FOR FREE.

Nutty

Long Live Auntie Beeb.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
slim Diamond Lil's 9
bitty RMR 0
Not_a_boffin Current Affairs 2

Similar threads

Top