Conservative Government on Mission to destroy the BBC

Status
Not open for further replies.

LOL The Irony

Established Member
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
4,822
Location
Wherever Lupin is
Obscene amounts of money end up in the pockets of almost every TV presenter on mainstream TV channels; if anything other more commercial channels probably pay out at least as much, possibly even more, to their presenters/personalities, the difference is at the BBC they're required to disclose the salaries. I agree the BBC staff are paid excessive amounts, but the reality is until all other channels drive down their salaries too, the BBC are probably pressured into higher amounts to try and be competitive somehow. But hey, that's capitalism for you.
TBH, the two most recent big name British presenters who went to America, failed or became washed, being piers morgan and james corden (how he's still on the air when nobody likes him is baffling) respectively. The grass isn't always greener, even if your paycheque is.
Or perhaps thinks they should have the choice of only being forced to pay for what they want to watch ?
Exactly. If a Sky or Virgin package doesn't interest you or you don't need it, you can either not take it when you take out your contract or cancel it. If you're unhappy with them, you can also leave once your contract is up and won't get sent snotty letters and thuggish goons by an outsourcing firm, threatening you with jail if you don't pay them £159.
But, should the BBC disappear (which I hope it does not) there would be nothing to stop the Scottish and Welsh Governments setting up their own publicly funded channels, along with their own licence fee ?
Correct, although knowing the people in charge there, they'd probably introduce a TV tax for all residents and it'd be no different than having the bbc. It'd be the same system, just now it's wearing a funny hat.
Making television is an expensive business and the stars of the day can command a premium.
Yes, but when they are commanding too much of a premium, maybe it's time to find some new, cheaper talent that are just as good.
Gary Lineker is an extremely experienced live sports presenter - a safe pair of hands for programmes watched by millions - there are not many people who can do that and they all get well compensated. He also gets paid significantly more for his non-BBC work - he is in the category of person who will take a pay cut in order to work for the BBC over its rivals.
Another nails on chalkboard personality though. What is it with the bbc and hiring these people?
Question still stands, if the BBC's commercial arm is hiding away it's profits, where are they going? You can't really argue that them being spent on presenters isn't contributing to the programming.
It is still part of a government organisation, so it should be not only posting its profits, but then outlining how said profits are spent. The main problem though, isn't where the money's going, but why we have to pay £159 to them when they have a commercial arm.
I agree, the BBC is not what it used to be for sure. However what's proposed will make it even worse than it currently is, cultural vandalism which is not unexpected from this government and this minister in particular.
The bbc has been on a self destruct path for years and it's about time someone hit the kill switch to prevent them from becoming an even bigger national embarrassment.
Top Gear (now they've stopped trying to reinvent it with crap presenters)
You mean cricket man and mr I'm only famous because of Peter Kay, whom the bbc have been trying their hardest (and failing) to non person CH&M with?
I have also watched some series made by the BBC on Netflix.
Again, why are we paying them £159 when they're making putting on and making shows exclusively for netflix?
They have ruined Question of Sport
Wonder who they did that with...
....and Momentum loathe them.
To be fair, momentum loathe anyone who doesn't almost perfectly align with them.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Geezertronic

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2009
Messages
4,036
Location
Birmingham
You mean cricket man and mr I'm only famous because of Peter Kay, whom the bbc have been trying their hardest (and failing) to non person CH&M with?
It's much better & bearable than when who came in when the original trio left :)

Again, why are we paying them £159 when they're making putting on and making shows exclusively for netflix?
They are not all necessarily exclusive to Neflix. Older series such as The Fall, Merlin, Cuckoo, Luther and I guess Orphan Black were originally shown on BBC and are now shown on Netfliix. Some others are available on Amazon Prime. But I get your point, they must be making money off them without the license fee
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
32,548
Location
Yorks
Frankly all of this making stuff for other channels such as Netflix and Britbox etc needs to be knocked on the head straight away. Everything they produce should first and foremost go to their terrestrial channels (which aren't exactly overburdened with fresh content as it is).

By all means flog things to other channels when license fee payers have had a chance to see them, but not before.
 

duncombec

Member
Joined
3 Sep 2014
Messages
492
It was amusing listening to the phone in on BBC local radio this morning, with a large number of people phoning in to say they never use watch BBC TV, don't use the BBC website... then changed the subject when the presenter pointed out they must have been listening to the BBC radio station to phone in.

Not one caller could give a specific example of the alleged "left-wing bias", or would consider it may be deemed left-wing by a right-wing government trying to hide its unpopularity. One caller tied himself in knots by stating it was "so obvious" yet also "subtle" in the space of two sentences, another based his opinions on what he last saw three years ago when he gave up his license and a few snippets seen on a TV in a café since, a third insisted it was biased because the first expert (a former professor of journalism, who was quite open about having appeared on many BBC and commercial outlets, and who gave examples of things the BBC could do to improve/cut costs) painted an overly positive picture; again the presenter pointed out by reading out his e-mail she had balanced the viewpoints.

As for outdated model... Germany's "GEZ" (or whatever it is called now) is €215.76/year (€17.98/month), equating to £180.15, which you have to pay regardless of whether you can received the broadcasts or not. The government just needs to read Wikipedia and see just how many countries do have a TV and/or radio licence, and even some of those that don't pay for TV through a compulsory levy on electricity bills - given the impending cost increase there, not sure we want to try that as an idea!
 

Bungle73

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2011
Messages
2,797
Location
Kent
This is just another thing, exactly like our EU membership, that so many people in this country have convinced themselves needs to be dismantled, and that we'd all be so much better off if they were done away with. Even when the facts don't back that up. Maybe people should research the concept of public service broadcasting and its benefits. Look at the BBC's high class drama and documentary output and tell me they don't produce quality content. Claiming that an organisation that sells its content around the world, and is respected around the world for its news content is a "national embarrassment" is asinine.

After Brexit, and once people have finished with the BBC, what's going to be next on people's target list to dismantle? :s
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,370
Frankly all of this making stuff for other channels such as Netflix and Britbox etc needs to be knocked on the head straight away. Everything they produce should first and foremost go to their terrestrial channels (which aren't exactly overburdened with fresh content as it is).

By all means flog things to other channels when license fee payers have had a chance to see them, but not before.
So totally cut off a significant revenue stream? I thought those who wanted to cut the license fee wanted to increase other revenue streams, not decrease them!
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,225
I think for me there has been a willingness to use cheap programmes to fill the schedules
Take today as an example;
BBC1 should take Politics Live from BBC 2 and the BBC2 closed down until 13:00 today (Bowls today) and I would argue perhaps until 16:00 in normal times rather than starting at 06:30 as most of BBC2 has been repeats this morning or taking the BBC News Channel.
Programmes like Eastenders, Green Planet and other programmes in Peak time TV slots should have adverts inserted in them and maybe sponsorship.
I also see no problem for the BBC to compete for sports coverage with some advertising but bluntly it should not be 'hidden' on the BBC I Player / Red Button. Take the snooker last week. On BBC 2 in the afternoon but relegated to the I Player at peak time why? BBC4 had repeats most of the week last week or programmes that weren't time critical to be shown when they were.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
29,496
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
First they throw them under the bus by scrapping the free licences,,,,
I am sure that to which you refer above has ended some time ago. I am 76 and paid my licence fee in the last 12 months.

Does 'The Thing' still get shown on the horror channel. Damn good movie that.
Indeed it does, but the last time it was broadcast on that channel, it was the version made in 2011, not the original 1988 version.
 
Last edited:

Bungle73

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2011
Messages
2,797
Location
Kent
Why should people be legally compelled under threat of criminal prosecution to fund a TV station they don't care to watch?
For the same reason we expect people who aren't ill to pay for the NHS, or people with no children to pay for schools, or people who don't have a crime to report to pay for the police, or people who have never had a house burn down to pay for the fire brigade

I am sure that to which you refer above has ended some time ago. I am 76 and paid my licence fee in the last 12 months.
What? :s
 

LSWR Cavalier

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2020
Messages
1,388
Location
Leafy Suburbia
Could go the other way, the BBC could hole the bojo regime below the waterline.
..
Perhaps the fee could be made voluntary without a set figure, plenty of people could afford to pay more. I am VERY glad to pay for health care, ESPECIALLY as I use it very rarely. Might well need a lot of it later, or perhaps not.

I used to be a radio 4 fan, it was perhaps the most important medium, what I hate now is the jingles and background music/noise on so many programmes, and the artificial attempts at chatty humour, and the presenters who should have retired.

Yours indignantly &c from Leafy Suburbia
 
Last edited:

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
2,586
Location
Wilmslow
Free TV licenses for those older than 75 ended in August 2020 (it had been planned for an earlier date but was delayed "because of Covid-19"), unless the person is a recipient of Pension Credit or living with a recipient of Pension Credit.
I believe that when this was announced the up-surge of applicants for Pension Credit by people who were entitled to it and either didn't know about it or didn't want to claim it for some reason resulted in a cost to the government greater than the saving from abolishing the free license. However this may not be true or, if it was, it may be something which only applies for a year or two.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
26,785
Location
Scotland
Whilst/if there is a need for public service broadcasting, it shouldn't solely be the BBC that provides it. All broadcasters, not confined to the legacy media, should be able to access the funding and produce said output.
Probably already commented on later in the thread, but both the BBC and Channel 4 receive funding out of the licence fee.
 

TwoYellas

Member
Joined
10 Jul 2021
Messages
78
Location
Birmingham
Indeed it does, but the last time it was broadcast on that channel, it was the version made in 2011, not the original 1988 version.
Ok. I've only seen the older version - let's just say the test they did to see who had become infected with 'The Thing' makes lateral flow test seem a walk in the park.

Symptoms were worse as well if I recall correctly.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,370
Probably already commented on later in the thread, but both the BBC and Channel 4 receive funding out of the licence fee.
As do S4C (Welsh language channel). A proportion of it also goes to the infrastructure costs related to Freeview and Freesat (i.e. the infrastructure that allows for free to air broadcast TV) and some (though probably not much) also goes into broadband related projects.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
15,592
Location
No longer here
For the same reason we expect people who aren't ill to pay for the NHS, or people with no children to pay for schools, or people who don't have a crime to report to pay for the police, or people who have never had a house burn down to pay for the fire brigade
But nobody is being left without essential service if the BBC goes towards a subscription, are they?

You will need a better argument. It is not clear to me in an atomised world of endless choice to anyone with an internet connection that a public service broadcaster should be funded by criminal compulsion.
 

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
6,380
Location
Somewhere
For the same reason we expect people who aren't ill to pay for the NHS, or people with no children to pay for schools, or people who don't have a crime to report to pay for the police, or people who have never had a house burn down to pay for the fire brigade

Not really sure how you can compare those to this but hey ho.
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
3,020
Location
Birmingham
I see there is a bit of dial back now, they are going to look at alternatives, which doesn't necessarily mean they'll get rid of it.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,094
The BBC is far from perfect, except in one area. It is the perfect organisation for anyone with an axe to grind to have a go at. As this thread demonstrates.
 

TwoYellas

Member
Joined
10 Jul 2021
Messages
78
Location
Birmingham
The BBC is far from perfect, except in one area. It is the perfect organisation for anyone with an axe to grind to have a go at. As this thread demonstrates.
It's also the perfect card for Johnson to play at this particular time - kept in the pocket for such a predicament as he now finds himself in.

His mama never raised no fool!
 

LOL The Irony

Established Member
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
4,822
Location
Wherever Lupin is
For the same reason we expect people who aren't ill to pay for the NHS, or people with no children to pay for schools, or people who don't have a crime to report to pay for the police, or people who have never had a house burn down to pay for the fire brigade
But these are understandable. Paying for an antiquated organisation that appeals to very few people, isn't.
Could go the other way, the BBC could hole the bojo regime below the waterline.
That'd be suicidal. You don't bite the hand that feeds you, unless you have a new hand to go to.
Perhaps the fee could be made voluntary without a set figure, plenty of people could afford to pay more.
This sounds like a subscription model.
Channel 4
They do get a share? This is either news to me and pretty much everyone else or simply not true.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
32,548
Location
Yorks
So totally cut off a significant revenue stream? I thought those who wanted to cut the license fee wanted to increase other revenue streams, not decrease them!

The BBC has many decades of making quality programmes for their channels then selling them around the world. Licence fee payers shouldn't have to pay twice for seeing their programmes.

Maybe there's a case for consolidating some of the organisations channels to cut down on the amount of filler. Merge 3 with 1 and 2 with 4.

There's doubtless some Deadwood on the radio that could be got rid of. We have the parliament channel and a round up on Today the following morning. Do we really need "Today in parliament" of an evening as well ?
 
Last edited:

Spamcan81

Member
Joined
12 Sep 2011
Messages
943
Location
Bedfordshire
Why should people be legally compelled under threat of criminal prosecution to fund a TV station they don't care to watch?

You fund commercial channels you don't watch when you buy products that are advertised on them. The cost of the advertising is included in the product price. Next you'll be saying people shouldn't pay council tax that funds services they don't use.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
12,052
After Brexit, and once people have finished with the BBC, what's going to be next on people's target list to dismantle? :s
The perpetually failing NHS, with any luck. It's a sacred cow that needs to go to the slaughterhouse.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
15,592
Location
No longer here
You fund commercial channels you don't watch when you buy products that are advertised on them. The cost of the advertising is included in the product price. Next you'll be saying people shouldn't pay council tax that funds services they don't use.
But I don't have to buy any commercial service. Why is the BBC any different, please? Why must you or I pay under threat of criminal prosecution?

People ought to pay their council tax because those services so funded by it are essential to the functioning of our society. Is the BBC? I would argue probably not, and a smaller BBC paid for on subscription by people who want it is probably preferable. I, personally, almost never watch the BBC and am not at all convinced I should pay 43p a day for you to do so.
 

TT-ONR-NRN

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2016
Messages
5,059
Location
Farnham, Surrey / Cardiff
But I don't have to buy any commercial service. Why is the BBC any different, please? Why must you or I pay under threat of criminal prosecution?

People ought to pay their council tax because those services so funded by it are essential to the functioning of our society. Is the BBC? I would argue probably not, and a smaller BBC paid for on subscription by people who want it is probably preferable. I, personally, almost never watch the BBC and am not at all convinced I should pay 43p a day for you to do so.
The thing is, unlike ITV which is becoming increasingly left-wing focused (and starting to force this heavily on the viewers through both soaps and ITV Daytime - GMB/This Morning/Loose Women), the BBC remains rather neutral and independent in it's broadcasting, which is a precious thing in this age of bias and one-sided views.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top