nightrider Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 I disagree Andy. The BBC does a lot of brilliant work. Newsnight is a bit of a nightmare at the moment, but Today, Question Time and Panorama are surely worth your licence fee. But its just not right forcing people to pay for it. If its so good why not give people the chance to choose if they want to pay a subscription for it? I would pay, but accept its really wrong to force people to pay who have a tv and do not watch the bbc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 I disagree Andy. The BBC does a lot of brilliant work. Newsnight is a bit of a nightmare at the moment, but Today, Question Time and Panorama are surely worth your licence fee. Today and QT are flagship programmes, and ITV don't do anything that comes close. Not so sure about Panorama any more, it's become a poorly researched, tabloid style, hatchet job style programme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caparo Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 The pension arrangement is being explained as a payoff for his resignation. If he had been sacked he would have been entitled to the amount he has been awarded in his generous payoff, and it could have been messy. So that explains the payoff but not why such stupid arrangements were offered in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Did I write that the parties were hurt by Entwhistle? Yes, you did. He should donate this to the hurt parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 It's about time the BBC either becomes commercial or does one. Being forced to pay for this sack of cack is just too tedious. you aren't forced to pay for it. You have chosen to pay for it. If you hate the service that much don't use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 you aren't forced to pay for it. You have chosen to pay for it. If you hate the service that much don't use it. That's not strictly true. If you have a telly, whether you watch bbc or not, you pay a license. Andy may just want to watch sky 1 all day everyday but will still have to pay a license. You could go to court and argue that point, and I seem to recall one family did, but it's alot of aggro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 If you have a telly, whether you watch bbc or not, you pay a license. Andy may just want to watch sky 1 all day everyday but will still have to pay a license. You could go to court and argue that point, and I seem to recall one family did, but it's alot of aggro. And you'd almost certainly lose, as the TV Licence by law is not there to pay for the right to watch BBC services, but to pay for the right to recieve any television broadcasts. That the Government has a legal agreement to then send most of that money directly to the BBC rather than into the treasury is besides the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Which parties exactly have been hurt by his (lack of) actions? He's resigned after the broadcast of a report, which at the time of broadcast was completely accurate (someone was accusing a senior tory of being a abuser), and that didn't overstep any laws, and was being complained about because they didn't name the accused person. I really don't know what's going on with the world. Two weeks ago we were demanding to know immediately who exactly all these suspected paedos were, regardless of evidence to back up those claims, and this week we're demanding that people get fired for some of those claims being investigated on TV and the evidence subsequently being found to be lacking. That really sums it up for me. Quite apart from the fact that a £450k salary for DG is insane, the reason he's had to resign is all the witless shrieking whipping up a crisis and refocusing public debate from Jimmy Savile and the wider problem of child abuse and child sexual abuse in society, to whether the director general of the BBC should have known something or not.<...>Seconded and thirded. Media in general evidently still has too much power over masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Which parties exactly have been hurt by his (lack of) actions? He's resigned after the broadcast of a report, which at the time of broadcast was completely accurate (someone was accusing a senior tory of being a abuser), and that didn't overstep any laws, and was being complained about because they didn't name the accused person. I really don't know what's going on with the world. Two weeks ago we were demanding to know immediately who exactly all these suspected paedos were, regardless of evidence to back up those claims, and this week we're demanding that people get fired for some of those claims being investigated on TV and the evidence subsequently being found to be lacking. I wrote that he should donate to the hurt parties but you foolishly inferred that this was a token of his liability.I hope you do not go into law or philosophy as such lazy thinking will come back to bite you.please do not twist my words to suit your version of events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 you aren't forced to pay for it. You have chosen to pay for it. If you hate the service that much don't use it. You need a licence to legally view non BBC items and to watch programmes on a PC-a person in reality has no choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.