Article & Poll: Should we keep the BBC Licence Fee?

What do you think about the licence fee

  • The Licence Fee the most appropriate way for the BBC to be funded

    Votes: 90 19.3%
  • The BBC has to change its funding approach to remain relevant

    Votes: 113 24.2%
  • The BBC should become commercial and the licence fee scrapped

    Votes: 253 54.2%
  • Other, please answer in the thread below...

    Votes: 11 2.4%

  • Total voters
    467

imightbewrong

Distinguished Member

hippo99

Distinguished Member
But who in their right minds would think it reasonable to use someone like that where the logistical problems are a nightmare. i.e. travelling to Africa, lugging the poor guy around in a wheelchair and in and out out a small boat? (from the little I've seen). It makes no sense at all.
Personally I thought the above came across as quite patronising...something that David Brent might come out with.

Lest people forget, it’s just a holiday/sight seeing review show that he helps present. Are people really suggesting this is beyond the capabilities of someone who just happens to need a wheelchair?
 
Last edited:

Doghouse Riley

Active Member
I think you’re misconstruing the gentlemen’s point.
He’s not saying someone can’t do this, he’s pointing out it is quite clearly diversity for the sake of diversity - as in I’m sure he’s a very capable guy but this position is poorly suited to his ability.

I was in the military and the same thing applies, you don’t shove people into positions they are not suited for simple to make a point that ‘look xyz can do this too, look at how virtuous we are’.
It’s like letting women into the military units I was in for the sake of equality and diversity while completely failing to understand how poorly suited they are for the role in terms of physical ability or their different needs and psychological makeup rather than placing them in a position that maximizes their strengths.
This trendy virtue signaling only hurts people in the long term.
Thanks for the support. There's a few on here who just can't seem to get beyond having a go at someone for applying a bit of common sense. "But it was ever thus" on message boards.
Living with a disabled person I have a lot of sympathy for the guy who would have to be lugged around on occasions by a BBC team to get hm into places where they can film him "coping." The viewer won't of course see the worst of these undignified moments.
I'm sure he'd have preferred a job in front of the cameras doing something else. But in his situation, perhaps he'd never be offered it.

Most disabled people know what holidays suit their particular circumstances, have done for decades, lots of companies and care associations can give plenty of help. They aren't Paralympians, so don't need a TV programme to show them the extremes possible with the expensive back-up team required.

But as I said, it's "box ticking," perhaps one of the worst examples.
 
Last edited:

hippo99

Distinguished Member
Or maybe he feels he can do the job. You know he’s a Paralympian right?

There’s that patronisation again...maybe he doesn’t need your ‘sympathy’ and just wants to get on with presenting a travel show which he is capable of doing (seeing as he’s presented it a number of years now).

The show isn’t about disabled holidays, it’s a general holiday/travel show - it’s neither here nor there whether the presenter is disabled or not. One of their presenters just happens to be disabled but that has no bearing on the actual holiday/destination they are showing.
 
Last edited:

imightbewrong

Distinguished Member
Or maybe he feels he can do the job. You know he’s a Paralympian right?
Can't belive he's in sport when there are so many more suitable people to do it. Madness.
 

SCOLANATOR

Active Member
I think we are all getting a little off topic here.
I think both sides are making fair points, this isn’t an attack on anyone - well other than the BBC as a whole.

I hope the guy is doing what he loves and is good at his job but I don’t think our comments were unreasonable to suggest the BBC will shove people into roles they are not well suited for to tick a box, we all know full well they have done this.

Someone else mentioned above the ridiculous salaries being paid out to BBC ‘stars’ this is something that makes my blood boil. Guys like Chris Evans being paid 7 figures for hosting a radio show that I honestly believe any halfway decent DJ could do for a 20th the cost. Or Jeremy Vine being paid obscene amounts for let’s be honest, a piss easy job.
Why do they get paid outrageous sums for a job anyone could probably do while I had mates maimed in Afghanistan who were lucky if they were making £40k? Makes me sick and yet another reason I despise the BBC.
There’s not a single position at the BBC where someone needs paid more than £150k and if they demand more sack them and give some young man or woman a chance at the role.
Specialist surgeons in the NHS aren’t being paid what these ‘stars’ and execs are getting.
 

imightbewrong

Distinguished Member
Guys like Chris Evans being paid 7 figures for hosting a radio show
I agree - really feel for him being shoved into a role where there are clearly better abled people for the job.
 

imightbewrong

Distinguished Member

SCOLANATOR

Active Member
I agree - really feel for him being shoved into a role where there are clearly better abled people for the job.
I don’t know what your problem is with people having differing points of view. I think you need to stop getting so wound up.
Welcome to supply and demand.
I don’t even know what to say, the BBC is a pit of elitism and greed. This is nothing to do with supply and demand it is greed.
You’re telling me a morning radio DJ job is either so demanding and the skill set so high that someone needs paid 7 figures or there’s so few people willing to do it? Seriously? This is BBC fat cats paying their buddies disgusting salaries simply because they can. Let’s let the BBC stand on its own two feet and see how well they can do. If you actually studied Econ (I did) you’d know public entities warp the free market as the same rules don’t apply. This is a complete falsehood that his pay is so high due to supply and demand.
 

Doghouse Riley

Active Member
I don’t know what your problem is with people having differing points of view. I think you need to stop getting so wound up.

I don’t even know what to say, the BBC is a pit of elitism and greed. This is nothing to do with supply and demand it is greed.
You’re telling me a morning radio DJ job is either so demanding and the skill set so high that someone needs paid 7 figures or there’s so few people willing to do it? Seriously? This is BBC fat cats paying their buddies disgusting salaries simply because they can. Let’s let the BBC stand on its own two feet and see how well they can do. If you actually studied Econ (I did) you’d know public entities warp the free market as the same rules don’t apply. This is a complete falsehood that his pay is so high due to supply and demand.
In any business, a manager can argue with their bosses for greater pay for those responsible to them. Once they've achieved that, they can point out the disparity between these rates of pay and their own, so demand more cash for themselves.
Doesn't often work in "the real world." but I bet it works at the BBC.

So it's counter productive trying to keep the wages of these so called celebrities down.
 

imightbewrong

Distinguished Member
I don’t know what your problem is with people having differing points of view. I think you need to stop getting so wound up.
Same

I don’t even know what to say, the BBC is a pit of elitism and greed. This is nothing to do with supply and demand it is greed.
You're telling me that say Chris Evans gets seven million listeners, he can be replaced with your funny mate Jeff from the pub and he'll get seven million? Seriously? Have a word with yourself. He went off to a commercial station and got paid even more. If you studied Econ (I did) you would know that that is market reality.
 

Goooner

Distinguished Member
What does it matter if he gets 7 million listeners or 70? A PSB shouldn’t be concerned with ratings.
 

imightbewrong

Distinguished Member
What does it matter if he gets 7 million listeners or 70? A PSB shouldn’t be concerned with ratings.
Ratings is how they show the service is relevant, or providing value to x% of the market for y% of the spend.
 

Goooner

Distinguished Member
I thought the idea of a PSB was to provide services that other broadcasters couldn’t/wouldn’t because they don’t necessarily attract an audience
 

Doghouse Riley

Active Member
If ever there was an example of throwing money at a programme to boost the ratings, it's Strictly Come Dancing. Each successive producer has busted a gut trying to beat the ratings achieved firstly of X-Factor and then those of their predecessor. It has become a parody of itself.

Given the number of repeats each week they could probably manage with two channels.

I read somewhere they "announced" that weren't going to make any more episodes of "Flog It." They don't need too. The episodes they have, could probably be repeated for the next ten years.
 

imightbewrong

Distinguished Member
I thought the idea of a PSB was to provide services that other broadcasters couldn’t/wouldn’t because they don’t necessarily attract an audience
I don't think they would be achieveing their purpose if the soley produced progams that no one watched/listened to.
 

hippo99

Distinguished Member
What does it matter if he gets 7 million listeners or 70? A PSB shouldn’t be concerned with ratings.
I thought the idea of a PSB was to provide services that other broadcasters couldn’t/wouldn’t because they don’t necessarily attract an audience
How many times has the argument ‘The BBC has very little I want to watch/listen to’ or ‘They only make crap programmes’ been used on this thread as a reason not to have the BBC?
You can’t then say they shouldn’t chase ratings & have it both ways.
 

Goooner

Distinguished Member
I don’t want it both ways. They license fee should be drastically reduced, so they can’t waste millions on the likes of Lineker every year and just show stuff that’s not commercially viable.
 

hippo99

Distinguished Member
I don’t want it both ways. They license fee should be drastically reduced, so they can’t waste millions on the likes of Lineker every year and just show stuff that’s not commercially viable.
Then predictably the comments on the thread will change to ‘The BBC doesn’t even make the programmes that I used to watch’...
 

Doghouse Riley

Active Member
It's such a clique. After all the scandals, it amazes me that Alan Yentob is still making programmes for the BBC.

"I guess he must know where the bodies are buried."
 

Goooner

Distinguished Member
Then predictably the comments on the thread will change to ‘The BBC doesn’t even make the programmes that I used to watch’...
Probably:)

The BBC needs to change, they can’t continue in this day and age they always have, going back to when there was only 2,3,4 and then 5 channels and no internet.
 

Dbcoup

Distinguished Member
The BBC is a public funded broadcaster that is also a commercial entity with fingers in all sorts of pie's all over the world. Britbox being the current one.
I dont mind what they sell and to who they sell their content to, but please stop making me pay for it by law if I dont want to.
 

Tempest

Distinguished Member
The BBC is a public funded broadcaster that is also a commercial entity with fingers in all sorts of pie's all over the world. Britbox being the current one.
I dont mind what they sell and to who they sell their content to, but please stop making me pay for it by law if I dont want to.
To be fair, I'm sure the argument will be: You don't have to pay as it stands.
As long as you don't watch Live TV then you don't pay.

Now, I would myself counter that statement by saying the one aspect I feel is 100% wrong in every single way is the BBC saying I need Their licence for Their service to watch someone else's content live.

How on earth that can be argued as rational/fair/legally good is beyond me.

So get rid of that crazy/makes no sense part, AND stop, so I understand can be the case, using 'The Heavies' to pressurise/trick? people into paying.

Deal with that and we're all good.

I understand the live TV rule only applies in reality to an actual TV program service, and not to something like watching the Apple/Google/Samsung event live on YouTube, or watching your favourite YouTuber, or Twitch Streamer with live video.
As they are not what one would define as actual TV program companies sending our live TV programs.

I myself don't watch ANY Live BBC, ITV, Ch4, FIVE etc content, and have not for over a year now.

I watch Netflix, Amazon Video, YouTube, Tiny bit of Daily Motion, and listen to many tech/science podcasts. I'm more that fulfilled with the above for all my content, and I genuinely don't know what's on "normal" TV even these days.

If they get funny, I can also show them all the TV and Radio aerials I took down from the roof. Although I'm aware they could argue there are other on-line ways to get live content, but it's a good photo for me to show them :)

tv-arial.jpg
 

Goooner

Distinguished Member
I could understand the tv license when we only had a handful of channels and they were all free.

Why should I have to pay the BBC just for the right to be able watch Sky, which I pay for?
 

Doghouse Riley

Active Member
I understood that you had to have a licence to operate a TV set, whether you watched BBC programmes or not. The licence fee went to the government and they decided what the BBC would receive.
 

mitchec1

Distinguished Member
I could understand the tv license when we only had a handful of channels and they were all free.

Why should I have to pay the BBC just for the right to be able watch Sky, which I pay for?
Yep I've spent the afternoon watching football and rugby on BT sport, the wife has to pay the BBC stupid rule.

Edit if the BBC's content was anything decent I'd be watching it and happy to pay but for me it just doesn't justify the £154
 
Last edited:

IronGiant

Moderator
I understood that you had to have a licence to operate a TV set, whether you watched BBC programmes or not. The licence fee went to the government and they decided what the BBC would receive.
That was the case but changed some time ago. Originally there was no reason to own a TV other than to watch broadcast TV, this changed with the advent of video tapes and games consoles but the licence conditions didn't change for a while (can't remember when). The current position is:

You don't need a TV licence to own or possess a television set. However, if you use it to watch or record programmes as they are being shown on TV or live on an online TV service, or to download or watch BBC programmes on demand, including catch up TV, on BBC iPlayer, then you need a TV licence in order to do so.

I-player was added in 2016 I think.
 
Last edited:

Tempest

Distinguished Member
Out of interest, say some naughty person records a TV show.

Let's say, Dads Army, Are you being served, The Apprentice, Top Gear, or some other BBC content, either from the past, or more recent, and uploads this to a video sharing site, be it YouTube, Daily motion, or one of the many others out there.
You watch this content, obviously not live, but also not from an official place.
What's the deal then?
Has the uploaded broken some law/rule by uploading others copyrighted content?
Are YOU breaking some rule/law watching the content from the video site?
Or if the law pretty much irrelevant when it comes to this?

Please note: I know I have used the term against the law, which may well be an incorrect term, as it's some private company/copyright issue.....

I'm sure pretty much everyone here has watched some old TV show from some unofficial site at some point.
 

mitchec1

Distinguished Member
That was the case but changed some time ago. Originally there was no reason to own a TV other than to watch broadcast TV, this changed with the advent of video tapes and games consoles but the licence conditions didn't change for a while (can't remember when). The current position is:

You don't need a TV licence to own or possess a television set. However, if you use it to watch or record programmes as they are being shown on TV or live on an online TV service, or to download or watch BBC programmes on demand, including catch up TV, on BBC iPlayer, then you need a TV licence in order to do so.

I-player was added in 2016 I think.
 

Similar threads

Trending threads

Latest news

Disney+ hits 10 million subscribers after first 24 hours
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Sharp unveils 30-inch rollable OLED TV
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
ATC launches C1 Sub Mk2 active subwoofer
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Best Home AV Products 2019 - Editor's Choice Awards
  • By Steve Withers
  • Published
Disney+ unveils Maclunkey cut of Star Wars: A New Hope
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Latest threads

Top Bottom