BBC, Value for money?

[Doghouse Riley]

Sorry but sending queues as a passive aggressive non violent direct action is absolute vintage Meldrew - the actions of yourself say it all.

Err..
Do you want chips with that?

Come on, I'm just having a bit of fun, you're taking things far too seriously, it's a habit of yours.

 

[imightbewrong]

Err..
Do you want chips with that?

Come on, I'm just having a bit of fun, you're taking things far too seriously, it's a habit of yours.

Er chips twice please. Stop taking things way too seriously eh? It's all just a laugh right?

 

[Doghouse Riley]

Er chips twice please. Stop taking things way too seriously eh? It's all just a laugh right?

Exactly, so why do you have to get so personal?

Says a lot about you.

Let's move on before posts start getting deleted.

 

[imightbewrong]

Exactly, so why do you have to get so personal?

Says a lot about you.

Let's move on before posts start getting deleted.

I don't think I'm getting any more personal than anyone else.

Agreed - let's move on before anyone takes it too seriously.

 

[krish]

I was hoping for a clear-out of the appallingly smug Stewart White & co.

Yep exactly who I was talking about, can't fathom why he's still there - and since '84, so even longer than I originally thought.

 

[aVdub]

We've been watching the BBC news for many years, but getting more and more fed up with it. We haven't watched the local news for a long time as it's rubbish.

Monday we gave the ITV news and local news a try and so far have prefered it by a country mile.

To us it seem much more down to earth than the beeb.

I usually put up with it for a while and as soon as the OH leaves the room it is turned off ASAP.
The other night I came in and it was on ITV news in the kitchen and for the first time in years I stopped and watched it.
Local (if 2 or 4 counties count as local) was pretty decent and even covered things that were newsworthy.

 

[Tempest]

Not sure I've seen an answer to this, so I'll ask again

And please correct me if I'm wrong.
Years ago the BBC wanted to raise prices I believe, and the deal with the government at the time was that, they could do what they wanted, but only under the strict agreement that they would not charge the over 75's

So they got to do what they wanted.
Then, when the time came, they decided, no, they don't want to continue to fund the over 75's as they then decided it would cost too much.

Simple question: Why for 1 second were they allowed to do this?

Pretty sure if I entered into such a legal agreement, then when time came to uphold my end of the deal I would not be allowed to change my mind.

Could/Should/Why didn't the government simply tell the BBC no, you cannot do that?

 

[sbriggs]

my understanding is that the agreement was that the bbc would take responsibility for funding the over 75s licences that’s subtly different from maintaining free licences .

Rather than getting the money from the government they would need to find the money themselves . They decided rightly or wrongly the way to do that was to charge over 75s not on pension credit for tv licences .

as far as I know there was no agreement to oblige them to keep them all free

 

[Crafty]

^ This is part of their major dilemma.

1: We can make all our products more suitable to older viewers as they are more lightly to use the BBC for the cast bulk of their viewing.
But they will of course die off. And the young viewers don't want to see this stuff.

2: We can make all our products more suitable to a younger audience, and annoy the older viewers who don't want to see this trash, but then the old viewers might give up and leave.
And these young viewers are less lightly to want to pay/subscribe to the BBC anyway.

The thing is that licence fee supporters (indeed some on this thread) tell us that the BBC provides such a wide range of coverage and we wouldn't get that anywhere else should the licence fee get scrapped.

Reality is they cover the same old crap everyone else does.

Regarding set top boxes and subscriptions in your other post, lets not forget that Greg Dyke deliberately sabotaged this happening during the move to digital to stop the BBC going to a subscription service Dyke 'promoted Freeview to save licence fee'

Just typical of the arrogant behaviour that for some reason is acceptable "because BBC".

I still think it should go to subscription service, for those who don't have suitable hardware/connectivity surely you can make a set top box for a couple of quid - freeview ones were not expensive originally and that was years ago.

 

[bjd]

"A funding model not suitable for the 21st century" must be due again soon. Now, where have I left my card and marker?

 

[RBZ5416]

I largely support the licence fee because of the little TV I do watch, the vast majority is BBC output. But it is very hard to defend the mega-salaries that the likes of newsreaders earn, never mind the "stars".

But one waste that does get to me is literal job duplication via the dual-presenter format. Just why? I'll wager that no one here is employed to do half a job, while someone else is paid to do the other half of the job, while they take a little breather. I kind of get the Ant & Dec thing, as they are employed specifically as a double-act & it's not BBC money. But why programs like *Strictly, Masterchef, etc. need two people standing side-by-side to present them is a mystery. Even at his advanced years I'm sure Brucie could have managed perfectly well without the vacuous peroxide "blond". I caught some appalling "Guess the intro" type music program recently & even that had two presenters. It's utterly pointless - or should that be Pointless.

*For avoidance of doubt, I don't watch these.

 

[nheather]

But one waste that does get to me is literal job duplication via the dual-presenter format. Just why? I'll wager that no one here is employed to do half a job, while someone else is paid to do the other half of the job, while they take a little breather.

*For avoidance of doubt, I don't watch these.

I actually understand that - I think it is a continuity thing, especially for live presentations - if one presenter loses track, has a cough or sneeze the other can pick up.

Also I think with one person talking at you all the time there is a danger of it coming across as too monotonous and too preachy.

Cheers,

Nigel

 

[bjd]

"A funding model not suitable for the 21st century" must be due again soon. Now, where have I left my card and marker?

Damn...it was Presenter Salaries. How could I have forgotten that one. I think you guys are just being spiteful now, avoiding the Funding Model because you know I'm waiting on it on Card 53B.

 

[krish]

As I've been informed, there's a huge on-line group of over 75s (to which I don't subscribe) who have since had meetings with the BBC and got an an agreement with them, that they don't have to start paying until after they received the (ten page) letter. So are only paying from October when we all got them. They've also got the BBC to agree to accept monthly cheques.
Personally I think the BBC gave enough notice in the media that the over 75s would have to start paying again from 1st of August. So I'm a bit suprised that they've allowed this latitude.

I've been sorting out my parents' 75+ licence in my dad's name, acting as him on the phone etc. In their case, the taking of payments has been delayed due to Capita fudgeing up the new direct debit arrangements - many who applied online received the letter below (dated 28 Aug).

I phoned up to see exactly what this bullsh*t was about, and was told they just couldn't set up DDs online, so were asking for handwritten DD applications. A month later, a virtually identical letter was received, I phoned up again and was told to ignore this letter as it was was a complete fudge up and they were supposed to send out letters confirming the new payment arrangements, and so payments wouldn't be expected until after October, and proper confirmation would arrive about a month later (around NOW).

Well this morning, managing their banking, I noticed a new DD arrangement finally in place, and went to sign in at the TVL site (TVL number / Surname / Postcode), which then redirected me to sign in at 75+ plan. Downloaded a PDF file of the new licence and viewed the below payment plan. They may receive the postal version any day now, but I'm not holding my breath.

As you can see, the shortfall from no payments from Aug to Oct is fully made up, since nine payments of £17.50 comes to £157.50. So I wouldn't be surprised if this'll be the same for the group you mentioned.

 

[Doghouse Riley]

The BBC's administration has always been pants.
I can remember a couple of Points of View message board contributors posting the fact that they'd e-mailed a complaint to the BBC and received replies to a totally different topic. I appreciate they're not going to reply to each individual message, so people will get a stock reply with just your address added (particularly complaints) but at least they could make sure they pressed the right naffin' button to generate it.

I've had a free licence for a few years. The renewal date was 31st March.

Shortly before the renewal date, I got a stock letter, telling me my licence was about to expire and they couldn't find my direct debit. Hardly suprising as the original had been cancelled. "Would I please raise another one?"

About this time I'd read in the papers about the new rules and the original date by which it was necessary for me to have a licence, I think this was then put forward because of Covid.
I replied saying I'd renew my licence when I needed to.

I didn't get a response, but did receive two further letters, saying the same thing, the final one included "the veiled threat of the baliffs." I ignored them.

What they'd done of course is raised all the old information and sent out the reminders to everyone on their data base. Just a case of pressing another button.

I largely support the licence fee because of the little TV I do watch, the vast majority is BBC output. But it is very hard to defend the mega-salaries that the likes of newsreaders earn, never mind the "stars".

But one waste that does get to me is literal job duplication via the dual-presenter format. Just why? I'll wager that no one here is employed to do half a job, while someone else is paid to do the other half of the job, while they take a little breather. I kind of get the Ant & Dec thing, as they are employed specifically as a double-act & it's not BBC money. But why programs like *Strictly, Masterchef, etc. need two people standing side-by-side to present them is a mystery. Even at his advanced years I'm sure Brucie could have managed perfectly well without the vacuous peroxide "blond". I caught some appalling "Guess the intro" type music program recently & even that had two presenters. It's utterly pointless - or should that be Pointless.

*For avoidance of doubt, I don't watch these.

I covered the "multi-presenter" situation twelve years ago in this **ss take of TV , entry in Urban Dictionary.


Save you reading the lot here's the relevant entry.

The number of programme presenters appearing at any one time, will usually be in inverse proportion to the quality of the programme.

Urban Dictionary: Doghouse's Laws of Television

Situations in respect of people and programmes on Television.

www.urbandictionary.com

 

[Doghouse Riley]

I actually understand that - I think it is a continuity thing, especially for live presentations - if one presenter loses track, has a cough or sneeze the other can pick up.

Also I think with one person talking at you all the time there is a danger of it coming across as too monotonous and too preachy.

Cheers,

Nigel

Most of these programmes' content is just that, I call 'em "schedule fillers" and two numpty presenters on silly money fronting rubbish is far cheaper than a drama.

 

[nheather]

I've been sorting out my parents' 75+ licence in my dad's name, acting as him on the phone etc. In their case, the taking of payments has been delayed due to Capita fudgeing up the new direct debit arrangements - many who applied online received the letter below (dated 28 Aug).

View attachment 1390909

I phoned up to see exactly what this bullsh*t was about, and was told they just couldn't set up DDs online, so were asking for handwritten DD applications. A month later, a virtually identical letter was received, I phoned up again and was told to ignore this letter as it was was a complete fudge up and they were supposed to send out letters confirming the new payment arrangements, and so payments wouldn't be expected until after October, and proper confirmation would arrive about a month later (around NOW).

Well this morning, managing their banking, I noticed a new DD arrangement finally in place, and went to sign in at the TVL site (TVL number / Surname / Postcode), which then redirected me to sign in at 75+ plan. Downloaded a PDF file of the new licence and viewed the below payment plan. They may receive the postal version any day now, but I'm not holding my breath.

View attachment 1390956

As you can see, the shortfall from no payments from Aug to Oct is fully made up, since nine payments of £17.50 comes to £157.50. So I wouldn't be surprised if this'll be the same for the group you mentioned.

Did the notice definitely come from TV Licensing. There are a lot of scams about, I received a couple and I also read that there were one especially targeted at the over-75s.

Cheers,

Nigel

 

[krish]

Did the notice definitely come from TV Licensing. There are a lot of scams about, I received a couple and I also read that there were one especially targeted at the over-75s.

Cheers,

Nigel

yep it's all kosher .. I'm careful about all that and have drummed it into them such that they're probably more cautious than me. They often don't even answer the phone if it's a number they don't recognise or withheld and then call me up to google that number.

Anyway logging in at the TVL site and checking all the details pretty much confirms it's all been done through their channels.

 

[sbriggs]

Most of these programmes' content is just that, I call 'em "schedule fillers" and two numpty presenters on silly money fronting rubbish is far cheaper than a drama.

One person schedule fillers is another's unmissable TV. One persons numpty presenter is another's favourite.

If down to finance, based on that assertion then, we should have more "schedule fillers" and less dramas.

Many BBC documentaries (maybe other sides as well) dont have any presenters on screen at all , and in some cases dont even have presenters. They may have journalists asking questions but even then they are not always shown.

On the other hand If you have ever seen TV without professional presenters but amateurs presenting then yes the price of production is cheaper but in many cases its unwatchable (except for the comedy value ) .

 

[mcbainne]

Can’t help but think that Brexit and Covid are sounding the death knell for the beeb

 

[Goooner]

We can but hope

 

[mcbainne]

We can but hope

That deserves more than one emoji

 

[aVdub]

Can’t help but think that Brexit and Covid are sounding the death knell for the beeb

That is bad, especially as Channel 5 isn't even real.

 

[mcbainne]

That is bad, especially as Channel 5 isn't even real.

See that Question Time viewing figures are down to 0.7 million from a peak of 8.3 million in 2009 meaning it’s less popular than dogging diaries

 

[sbriggs]

More a reflection on the British public’s current appetite