TV licence thread

[Cyclone]

How is this relevant?

[ECCOnoob]

Oh you know people on here Cryclone.    They cannot get into their heads that the BBC is the broadcaster and part of that invovles creating entertaining and interesting content that viewers and listeners are interested in consuming. 

 

That costs money and sometimes they spend extra money going to a location somewhere outside a soundproofed windowless studio.

 

I honestly think some people resent every penny that gets spent irrelevant of rational circumstances JUST because its the BBC. 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 5, 2019 by ECCOnoob

[Car Boot]

In 1981 Kenneth Kendall was paid £16,000 a year to read the main BBC news to an average 8 million viewers.

 

Huw Edwards is now paid £490,000 a year for 5 million viewers.  That's nearly a 3000* per cent increase, for less viewers.

 

*2963 per cent pay increase in 37 years. 

 

 

BBC hate the poor. Love the rich.

Edited July 6, 2019 by Car Boot

[melthebell]

8 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

In 1981 Kenneth Kendall was paid £16,000 a year to read the main BBC news to an average 8 million viewers.

 

Huw Edwards is now paid £490,000 a year for 5 million viewers.  That's nearly a 3000* per cent increase, for less viewers.

 

*2963 per cent pay increase in 37 years. 

 

 

BBC hate the poor. Love the rich.

and have a look how much other broadcasters stars are paid, how much film stars are paid

[Car Boot]

7 minutes ago, melthebell said:

and have a look how much other broadcasters stars are paid, how much film stars are paid

You fail to recognise that comparing private sector 'talent' or film stars to the public sector funded BBC is entirely irrelevant.

 

It's all to do with the unique way the BBC is funded you see (demanding money with menaces from every UK home).

 

Does Jennifer Lawrence or Johnny Depp come to our homes demanding we pay them money just in case we may be watching one of their films?

 

BBC leeches should face trial for their war on the poor.

[melthebell]

10 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

You fail to recognise that comparing private sector 'talent' or film stars to the public sector funded BBC is entirely irrelevant.

 

 

not really, if the BBC dont pay the going rate where do the talent go? not to the cheapest place i bet. Like it or not the public want talent, they want "faces" they want people who are known to them, the BBC have to pay up to get / keep them, its that simple

[Car Boot]

1 hour ago, melthebell said:

not really, if the BBC dont pay the going rate where do the talent go? not to the cheapest place i bet. Like it or not the public want talent, they want "faces" they want people who are known to them, the BBC have to pay up to get / keep them, its that simple

Is Graham Norton or Gary Lineker going to head to Hollywood and mega bucks if the BBC doesn't pay them £millions of licence fee viewers money? Not on your nelly. These people could never get the huge amounts of money they are paid by the BBC anywhere else.

 

You really must drop this 'pay the going rate' nonsense. It doesn't apply to the BBC due to the unique way it is funded.

[melthebell]

16 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

Is Graham Norton or Gary Lineker going to head to Hollywood and mega bucks if the BBC doesn't pay them £millions of licence fee viewers money? Not on your nelly. These people could never get the huge amounts of money they are paid by the BBC anywhere else.

 

You really must drop this 'pay the going rate' nonsense. It doesn't apply to the BBC due to the unique way it is funded.

you telling me they wont go to ITV, C4, C5, Amazon or Netflix if the offers right?

[iansheff]

Why have the BBC got presenters at an empty stadium giving their views on the England v Sweden match?  Marvellous how they moan about money yet they have these people at an empty stadium in France, they could have had them in a studio back in England, then again why not it is only licence payers money they are spending.

[Car Boot]

27 minutes ago, melthebell said:

you telling me they wont go to ITV, C4, C5, Amazon or Netflix if the offers right?

Who cares if they go to the private sector? If they do they will be paid less than the BBC, as Jonathan Ross and others have quickly discovered.

 

It's the public sector and the unique way the BBC is funded that is at issue here. The public sector should not be creating £multi-millionaires at the expense of the poor and vulnerable pensioners. 

 

4 minutes ago, iansheff said:

Why have the BBC got presenters at an empty stadium giving their views on the England v Sweden match?  Marvellous how they moan about money yet they have these people at an empty stadium in France, they could have had them in a studio back in England, then again why not it is only licence payers money they are spending.

The BBC are an integral part of the ruling class. The ruling class have always looked down on the rest of us while picking our pockets.

Edited July 6, 2019 by Car Boot