TV licence thread

[melthebell]

15 minutes ago, Janus said:

None of these are your average working class bloke.

Poor try.

see you missed out the second part of his post where he stated there will be lots of lower paid workers working for them too

 

poor try.

[Cyclone]

1 hour ago, Janus said:

 

How many of you are on these sort of wages?

https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Hourly-Pay/BBC-Hourly-Pay-E5847.htm

Just looking at some of the IT roles, they pay well under the going rate, I wouldn't work for them for that amount...

 

Perhaps I misunderstood the context, but were you suggesting that the BBC is overpaying these people and that it could save money by paying them less?

If so, that's nonsense of the highest order.  If they cut those rates any lower they'd simply find that they couldn't hire anyone qualified.

Edited June 16, 2019 by Cyclone

[I1L2T3]

1 hour ago, Janus said:

We should all be banding together and calling for the  license to be abolished, or at the very least drastically reduced. £50 per year would kick bbc salaries in to touch.

The one  reason why the working class (of which I'm part of) rarely win  the establishment , is because they fight & argue amongst themselves. Divide and conquer almost every time.

The significance of the poll tax  victory was that the majority of the UK population were affected by it, and they created strength by sticking together. The government of the time backed down.

Most  of the UK population  are probably affected by this out of date tax. It is a just and ideal oportinity to stand up and be counted. Car boot and Zach are right.

The BBC should earn it's income like other broadcasters.

 

Stand up for something or take everything laying down.

 

 

How many of you are on these sort of wages?

https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Hourly-Pay/BBC-Hourly-Pay-E5847.htm

The software engineer roles pay less than where I work. I wouldn’t work in Manchester let alone London for that.

[El Cid]

1 hour ago, Janus said:

The one  reason why the working class (of which I'm part of) rarely win  the establishment , is because they fight & argue amongst themselves. Divide and conquer almost every time.

 

3

Maybe because people argue about pensioners getting freebies in the entertainment area, when they still have to pay for more important things like reading glasses.

 

Do you think they should get free Netflix too?  How many pensioners have failed to work enough in order to qualify for these pension credits that make them eligible for a free TV license? The Conservatives have looked after pensioners in recent years with the 'triple lock' meaning their pension would increase more than inflation.

Maybe it's not the pensioners that need more freebies?

[I1L2T3]

The time has come for the older sections of the population who have voted disproportionately to make younger people poorer to take their share of the pain.

 

Younger people are losing their jobs so it’s honestly quite unbelievable that the older generation think they should be immune.

[max]

9 minutes ago, I1L2T3 said:

The time has come for the older sections of the population who have voted disproportionately to make younger people poorer to take their share of the pain.

 

Younger people are losing their jobs so it’s honestly quite unbelievable that the older generation think they should be immune.

Wouldn't it make more sense for "younger people" to fight for the same benefits that older people enjoy? Rather than have a race to the bottom look at ways to persuade governments and employers to give you cheaper buses fares, cheaper housing, more stable jobs, higher incomes, etc? The problem is not what happened in the past but what the latest generations are allowing commercial interests to do to them.

 

People are constantly blaming the baby boomers for what's happening now but the real culprits are those who sold out workers' rights, that is the generation after the baby boomers. We used to have trades unions helping to protect our rights, ensuring job security and annual cost of living rises to enable us to keep up with inflation. Once people bought into trickle down economics and believed that employers were looking after their workforce that's when control of our futures slipped out of our grasp.

[Cyclone]

1 hour ago, max said:

Wouldn't it make more sense for "younger people" to fight for the same benefits that older people enjoy? Rather than have a race to the bottom look at ways to persuade governments and employers to give you cheaper buses fares, cheaper housing, more stable jobs, higher incomes, etc? The problem is not what happened in the past but what the latest generations are allowing commercial interests to do to them.

 

People are constantly blaming the baby boomers for what's happening now but the real culprits are those who sold out workers' rights, that is the generation after the baby boomers. We used to have trades unions helping to protect our rights, ensuring job security and annual cost of living rises to enable us to keep up with inflation. Once people bought into trickle down economics and believed that employers were looking after their workforce that's when control of our futures slipped out of our grasp.

Society doesn't have a magic money tree though, someone has to pay for bus companies to run, they don't do it out of charity.

 

It's nothing to do with the past, but it's to do with the current.

[zach]

13 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

It doesn't work like that and you know it. 

 

The situation would be if the law stated that everyone must pay £150 before they are allowed to have a internet connection irrelevant of what supplier they choose.

 

The law and the licence is for ANY broadcast television.

And that imo, is where the issue lies.

 

It was made law that the BBC is paid even if you don't use their service. You don't see a problem with that?

 

As I said, I do pay as I use the BBC but having to pay if you don't use them is just wrong and there must be a way that's fair for everyone.

[ECCOnoob]

31 minutes ago, zach said:

And that imo, is where the issue lies.

 

It was made law that the BBC is paid even if you don't use their service. You don't see a problem with that?

 

As I said, I do pay as I use the BBC but having to pay if you don't use them is just wrong and there must be a way that's fair for everyone.

It was made law that anyone receiving broadcast television from any source pays a licence to receive it.

 

What the government chooses to do with the revenue is their decision.  They choose to fund the BBC with it as they are a state broadcaster.   I say again, if the BBC was closed down tomorrow do you think the government would suddenly scrap the licence fee or would they just divert the money somewhere else?

[Lockdoctor]

28 minutes ago, zach said:

And that imo, is where the issue lies.

 

It was made law that the BBC is paid even if you don't use their service. You don't see a problem with that?

 

As I said, I do pay as I use the BBC but having to pay if you don't use them is just wrong and there must be a way that's fair for everyone.

The difference between the BBC and the other television providers is that the BBC is our country's state/ national broadcaster.  There are obvious reasons why countries have state broadcasters.  It's only fair that a state broadcaster in funded by the Government from taxpayers money.  We all have to pay taxes which fund public services regardless of whether individual taxpayers use the service they help to fund.  The television licence is a form of tax.  There is an argument that in this day in age in a free country like the UK there is no need for a state broadcaster, but I personally think it's good having a state broadcaster.  The BBC is the best media outlet by a country mile for covering events such as the recent D-Day commemorations.