I never minded paying it, until George Entwistle walked away with the best part of half a million pounds after being in the job just 54 days. You accept the job and the money that goes with it, then you carry the can as far as I'm concerned. It really irritates me that we reward failure with these pay-offs.
These top directors would tell you they scarified other roles therefore they need to be compensated and in fairness that's the way it is as top positions are hard to come by.
But I agree with you.
Now what about the £3m a year they pay to that nonentity Graham Norton? How can anyone justify that sort of money to some 2 rate presenter or any presenter for that matter? At least blue chip directors are in charge of billions and have their job on the line if they dont perform Norton is a noboby much like the rest of the overpaid celebrities
The question isn't daft, because it isn't asking whether things should be free, but whether the method of funding, i.e. a licence fee, enforced currently via penalty for non-payment, should be scrapped, presumably in favour of commercial revenue.
Hmmm. it's just playing on people's selfishness imo.
Understanding public service broadcasting means adopting a certain degree of altruism and pitching in for the common good.
Do I like 'Match of the Day'? Nope, but someone does. I'm paying for him to watch it, and he's paying for me to watch Bake Off.
I almost never watch BBC programmes, and those I do I watch via iplayer. I get all my tv/film content online from Netflix and use the mediahint add-on so I can see the US version, which is way better than anything the BBC has to offer.
I don't own a tv, and don't need a licence. The only part of the BBC output I value is really R4, but I'm still not a heavy or regular user.
So the BBC gets nothing from me.
I wouldn't subscribe to BBC content, but I would be happy to buy occasional programmes and podcasts as one-offs - especially if they opened up their archives.
That's the only way they'll get any money from me, as I actually think the vast majority of their current content is desperately poor.
It's because you licence a licence-holder and a property, not the number of TVs.
If you needed to rent a small van to move some furniture, you wouldn't need to apply and pay for a licence to drive the van. Your licence covers you for driving all vehicles within the vehicle category.
I understand that but it doesn't make it fair.
In my house, for eg, there are 3 adults and 2 children. All the adults could drive my van but would need separate licences
We all watch different TV's ( most of the time) but pay only one licence between us
The licence rules were put in place when most households had more than one generation living in them. Nowadays , there's a lot more single occupancy households.
I agree with having the licence , I just don't think it's been updated adequately to fit in with changing times.
Even this government/ council give you a rebate on Council tax if you live on your own !
I understand that but it doesn't make it fair.
In my house, for eg, there are 3 adults and 2 children. All the adults could drive my van but would need separate licences
We all watch different TV's ( most of the time) but pay only one licence between us
The licence rules were put in place when most households had more than one generation living in them. Nowadays , there's a lot more single occupancy households.
I agree with having the licence , I just don't think it's been updated adequately to fit in with changing times.
Even this government/ council give you a rebate on Council tax if you live on your own !
How on earth would you regulate that? Tax every TV annually and make children pay tax?
I don't think people should be forced to pay for a TV company that is politically biased towards the left and only really represents centre to left wing views.
A public broadcaster should be politically neutral, the BBC is not.
For the sake of information, Digital Spy has a designated (Broadcasting) forum given over to discussing this precise question again and again and again!
I don't think people should be forced to pay for a TV company that is politically biased towards the left and only really represents centre to left wing views.
A public broadcaster should be politically neutral, the BBC is not.
This nonsense is trotted out time after time and has never actually once been substantiated.
I dont think i should pay council tax. very unfair indeed. all i get is bins emptied and one streetlight ....... why i should subsidise the education of other peoples' children i have no idea .......
...... the original OnDIgital system was subscription of course. it failed because dvb t1 did not perform as predicted ........(itv scored an own goal)
The BBC's long ceased to be a broadcaster devoted to public service. Just look at the lowest common denominator dirge that's shoved out from BBC1, with BBC 2 following closely on its heels.
The licence tax / fee is truly an anachronism in this day and age - why on earth should we be forced to pay for the cosy trough that is the broadcasting arm of the civil service just for the privilege of enjoying other broadcast media ?
Too much of the BBC is a self-serving carousel for the bland, the mediocre and those who've never had a job in the real world.
Believe me, life will go on when this outrageous tax is finally killed off.
The point that a lot of people are missing is the licence fee is purely for the right to watch TV nothing more, the fact that the government use the proceeds to fund the BBC is pretty irelivent. If the BBC were to close tomorrow the licence fee would remain and just go to the consolidated treasury fund instead.
The point that a lot of people are missing is the licence fee is purely for the right to watch TV nothing more, the fact that the government use the proceeds to fund the BBC is pretty irelivent. If the BBC were to close tomorrow the licence fee would remain and just go to the consolidated treasury fund instead.
I hope it would still exist, to fund subscription free TV. Being at the mercy of commercial operators is not something we should.encourage, it will only lead to higher prices for lesser quality.
I currently have Sky, but if there was no free alternative with financial backing to ensure it still is viable, Sky, Virgin Media etc would take advantage of this and increase their prices knowing that the free alternatives were poor.
All the screens in my house are large computer monitors. Since we don't have any method of receiving the signal installed they can't really claim otherwise.
Their content isn't even worth what they attempt to extort from people for it, really quite pathetic compared to the amount of premium content netflix provide for £72 a year (less, for many who take a promo offer)
The poster you quoted mentioned nothing about not paying if someone doesn't have the equipment to receive the signal. Obviously you won't get into trouble if you don't have any form of TV aerial in your house or on the roof.
I hope it would still exist, to fund subscription free TV. Being at the mercy of commercial operators is not something we should.encourage, it will only lead to higher prices for lesser quality.
I currently have Sky, but if there was no free alternative with financial backing to ensure it still is viable, Sky, Virgin Media etc would take advantage of this and increase their prices knowing that the free alternatives were poor.
Eh? But you'd still be paying a subscription though if it still existed.
I understand that but it doesn't make it fair.
In my house, for eg, there are 3 adults and 2 children. All the adults could drive my van but would need separate licences
We all watch different TV's ( most of the time) but pay only one licence between us
The licence rules were put in place when most households had more than one generation living in them. Nowadays , there's a lot more single occupancy households.
I agree with having the licence , I just don't think it's been updated adequately to fit in with changing times.
Even this government/ council give you a rebate on Council tax if you live on your own !
But why would having more then 1 tv make any difference, would you also have to pay for each laptop you have in the house or for each mobile phone, it does cost no more for the signal to reach a house with 10 tv than it does for a house 1 in it
Ads alone wouldn't even come close to covering a fraction of the cost of generating the output that the BBC do. Plus, the other commercial TV companies would go spare! (there is a fixed TV advertising budget from companies that has to go around all the TV companies, so if the Beeb start charging, advertising revenues for the rest would plummet.
If we were to scrap the licence fee, the BBC would have to become like Sky - a subscription model. Bear in mind that once terrestrial broadcasting network moves to CA, you'd probabaly lose Freeview as well (which is propped up by the BBC as part of its PBS requirements).
I hope it would still exist, to fund subscription free TV. Being at the mercy of commercial operators is not something we should.encourage, it will only lead to higher prices for lesser quality.
Ergo, the Government should also then start selling baked beans, beer, double glazing and holidays abroad ?
If the concept of a television viewing tax were newly proposed today, it'd be laughed out Parliament.
I don't object to paying the £11 a month I pay to receive the 2 or 3 shows I regularly watch on BBC (I'm actually trying to think of more than 2 ) and the programmes my daughter watches on CBBC and Cbeebies.
I do object to the ludicrous amount of money being shelled out to those who work for the BBC who commute daily/weekly and whose commute is paid for by the public, along with the relocation/second homes being funded by the public too. There are people who live and work in the north who would love a job, if people don't want to relocate the country is filled with others who would. The DWP and others are always harping on about people being prepared to move for a job, and yet they wouldn't be assisted in this way from the public purse.
One interesting thing on the TV Licensing website "You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast" .. I presume this means that you don't need to pay a License fee if you only watch BBC on catchup? How you prove that, I do not know! I'm sure there are people around who could enlighten me about the technicalities.
The BBC move to Salford has been well documented by the NAO http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/10143-001_The-BBCs-move-to-Salford.pdf
Can I suggest you look at that which reports that the BBC moved more people to Salford than they were expecting too..... Yes there were some strange an undocumented payments .. But the BBC. T&c. For the move are what civil servants typically receive and were bench marked against a wider industry good practise,
And were worse than some ex BBC staff working on BBC contracts with commercial companies received fir doing the same move.
There is always waste in any organisation ... But the BBC on the whole us a tight ship .. And has been saving our money well over many years ...
The only thing that I criticise them fir in recent times is not starting DMI with requirements and then ignoring what the NAO had to say repeatedly,
Comments
yeah that's the same.
you do pay 4 lots of road tax. despite the fact you can only drive one car at once.
whilst it is called a tv licence it has no comparison with a driving licence. it is much closer to the car tax.
These top directors would tell you they scarified other roles therefore they need to be compensated and in fairness that's the way it is as top positions are hard to come by.
But I agree with you.
Now what about the £3m a year they pay to that nonentity Graham Norton? How can anyone justify that sort of money to some 2 rate presenter or any presenter for that matter? At least blue chip directors are in charge of billions and have their job on the line if they dont perform Norton is a noboby much like the rest of the overpaid celebrities
Hmmm. it's just playing on people's selfishness imo.
Understanding public service broadcasting means adopting a certain degree of altruism and pitching in for the common good.
Do I like 'Match of the Day'? Nope, but someone does. I'm paying for him to watch it, and he's paying for me to watch Bake Off.
It's very healthy.
Quite often all four are on at the same time ( there are 5 of us )
I don't own a tv, and don't need a licence. The only part of the BBC output I value is really R4, but I'm still not a heavy or regular user.
So the BBC gets nothing from me.
I wouldn't subscribe to BBC content, but I would be happy to buy occasional programmes and podcasts as one-offs - especially if they opened up their archives.
That's the only way they'll get any money from me, as I actually think the vast majority of their current content is desperately poor.
I understand that but it doesn't make it fair.
In my house, for eg, there are 3 adults and 2 children. All the adults could drive my van but would need separate licences
We all watch different TV's ( most of the time) but pay only one licence between us
The licence rules were put in place when most households had more than one generation living in them. Nowadays , there's a lot more single occupancy households.
I agree with having the licence , I just don't think it's been updated adequately to fit in with changing times.
Even this government/ council give you a rebate on Council tax if you live on your own !
How on earth would you regulate that? Tax every TV annually and make children pay tax?
A public broadcaster should be politically neutral, the BBC is not.
No idea !
(Wouldn't make children pay tax either)
Just because I can't think of a better system, it doesn't mean the current one is fair
Eta. Thanks for the heads up about the broadcasting section. Will have a look later
This nonsense is trotted out time after time and has never actually once been substantiated.
The licence tax / fee is truly an anachronism in this day and age - why on earth should we be forced to pay for the cosy trough that is the broadcasting arm of the civil service just for the privilege of enjoying other broadcast media ?
Too much of the BBC is a self-serving carousel for the bland, the mediocre and those who've never had a job in the real world.
Believe me, life will go on when this outrageous tax is finally killed off.
Its always the same from both the left and right. They cry bias because they don't unanimously side with one side.
The right are by far the worst at this though.
I currently have Sky, but if there was no free alternative with financial backing to ensure it still is viable, Sky, Virgin Media etc would take advantage of this and increase their prices knowing that the free alternatives were poor.
The poster you quoted mentioned nothing about not paying if someone doesn't have the equipment to receive the signal. Obviously you won't get into trouble if you don't have any form of TV aerial in your house or on the roof.
Eh? But you'd still be paying a subscription though if it still existed.
But why would having more then 1 tv make any difference, would you also have to pay for each laptop you have in the house or for each mobile phone, it does cost no more for the signal to reach a house with 10 tv than it does for a house 1 in it
Ads alone wouldn't even come close to covering a fraction of the cost of generating the output that the BBC do. Plus, the other commercial TV companies would go spare! (there is a fixed TV advertising budget from companies that has to go around all the TV companies, so if the Beeb start charging, advertising revenues for the rest would plummet.
If we were to scrap the licence fee, the BBC would have to become like Sky - a subscription model. Bear in mind that once terrestrial broadcasting network moves to CA, you'd probabaly lose Freeview as well (which is propped up by the BBC as part of its PBS requirements).
Ergo, the Government should also then start selling baked beans, beer, double glazing and holidays abroad ?
If the concept of a television viewing tax were newly proposed today, it'd be laughed out Parliament.
I do object to the ludicrous amount of money being shelled out to those who work for the BBC who commute daily/weekly and whose commute is paid for by the public, along with the relocation/second homes being funded by the public too. There are people who live and work in the north who would love a job, if people don't want to relocate the country is filled with others who would. The DWP and others are always harping on about people being prepared to move for a job, and yet they wouldn't be assisted in this way from the public purse.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/16/payouts-bbc-staff-salford-quays-london-mps
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/314201/Why-does-Manchester-deserve-the-BBC
One interesting thing on the TV Licensing website "You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast" .. I presume this means that you don't need to pay a License fee if you only watch BBC on catchup? How you prove that, I do not know! I'm sure there are people around who could enlighten me about the technicalities.
http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/10143-001_The-BBCs-move-to-Salford.pdf
Can I suggest you look at that which reports that the BBC moved more people to Salford than they were expecting too..... Yes there were some strange an undocumented payments .. But the BBC. T&c. For the move are what civil servants typically receive and were bench marked against a wider industry good practise,
And were worse than some ex BBC staff working on BBC contracts with commercial companies received fir doing the same move.
There is always waste in any organisation ... But the BBC on the whole us a tight ship .. And has been saving our money well over many years ...
The only thing that I criticise them fir in recent times is not starting DMI with requirements and then ignoring what the NAO had to say repeatedly,