TV licence thread

[Janus]

It's time for a judicial review of the bbc.

[Longcol]

11 minutes ago, Janus said:

It's time for a judicial review of the bbc.

That isn't what judicial reviews do.

 

https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/judicial-review/

[Robin-H]

2 hours 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.

Oh yeah because no BBC presenter has ever gone to another channel because they’ve been offered more money have they...

 

It case it was obviously, that should be read with a heavy dose of sarcasm.. 

1 hour ago, Car Boot said:

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. 

 

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.

They aren’t! The wage bill for presenters and the like is 0.5% of their costs. 

 

Please explain to me how reducing what they pay these people is going make any difference. 

[kaytie]

6 hours 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.

 

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.

Well said!     Archaic system.   Should be made Pay to View, although I for one wouldn't. 

Edited July 6, 2019 by kaytie

[ECCOnoob]

1 minute ago, kaytie said:

Well said!   

No.  Not well said.   Moronic.

 

The BBC is a broadcasting service not just some government infomation channel.    Broadcasters aim to provide content which attracts viewers and listeners.  To do that, they need to make programmes which people want to watch starring personalities who people want to see.

9 minutes ago, kaytie said:

Well said!     Archaic system.   Should be made Pay to View, although I for one wouldn't. 

You do know what the TV licence is for dont you.

 

Its not payment for a subscription service.

[Car Boot]

2 hours ago, Robin-H said:

Oh yeah because no BBC presenter has ever gone to another channel because they’ve been offered more money have they...

 

It case it was obviously, that should be read with a heavy dose of sarcasm.. 

They aren’t! The wage bill for presenters and the like is 0.5% of their costs. 

 

Please explain to me how reducing what they pay these people is going make any difference. 

So the BBC paying Gary Lineker £1.75 million every year ISN'T using public sector money to create £millionaires?

 

Don't forget, persecuting the poor to fund the rich is all because of the unique way the BBC is funded. 

[Car Boot]

47 minutes ago, kaytie said:

Well said!     Archaic system.   Should be made Pay to View, although I for one wouldn't. 

The BBC has carried out detailed studies into the viability of subscription and discovered that it would not bring in anywhere near as much money as the licence fee. The BBC understands that once people are given the choice of voluntarily paying for its content, such as under a subscription service, most people would prefer not to. 

 

The very last thing the BBC wants is subscription. It would end the extremely lucrative gravy train for the few.

[ECCOnoob]

35 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

So the BBC paying Gary Lineker £1.75 million every year ISN'T using public sector money to create £millionaires?

 

Don't forget, persecuting the poor to fund the rich is all because of the unique way the BBC is funded.

Stop lying. 

 

Who is persecuting the poor?      If you want to watch broadcast television (which includes paying on screen talent) then you pay the licence. If you dont then you dont.

 

The GOVERNMENT decides what they do with licence revenue and they CHOOSE to give it to the BBC. 

 

Since when was a free CHOICE persecution. 

[Longcol]

38 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

So the BBC paying Gary Lineker £1.75 million every year ISN'T using public sector money to create £millionaires?

 

 

Kind of evading the question RH asked - which was how will reducing the wage bill for presenters - 0.5% of the costs of the BBC - make any difference.

[crookesjoe]

On 30/06/2019 at 09:15, Cyclone said:

And you advertise that you're a criminal on a public forum...  Does it make you proud?

Yes, I'm absolutely proud of the fact that I won't pay them.

 

The license fee is a racket, I couldn't look myself in the mirror if I contributed to something I so strongly disagree with.

Edited July 6, 2019 by crookesjoe