What your TV licence money goes on..

[RogerS]

Interesting set of views here. Given that there is a dearth of good stuff on the box I was wondering about a thread where folk could alert people to something good ? I wouldn't want it to degenerate into "No, I think it's rubbish" " No, it is good" frenzy because I think it reasonable to ask for a positive thread without any negative bile.

 

[RogerS]

True...plenty of jollies at the Beeb.

Really ? How do you know that ? Any actual experience of working for the BBC ?

I did. And I saw jollies. I even remember having a letter published in Ariel about the jollies. At a time when we had a pay freeze and were haemorrhaging technical staff to the commercial companies.

I despair of people giving the Daily Mail any credence at all, it's appalling.

I agree it is appalling but that doesn't diminish the figures provided surely?

Do they work out how much the coverage costs and seeing who is more efficient ?

Possibly not. Are you able to? How do you work it out? If you say that the wall-to-wall coverage of Saint Nelson justified sending that many people and so if you work out the hours broadcast per person then I would say that that was wrong simply because the saturation coverage was totally unnecessary. The day after you couldn't find a channel on the BBC that wasn't doing something about Mandela. So many of those channels will have popped people on a plane.

Do they compare the number of people other major international broadcasters sent ?

Nine from ITV allegedly.

Do they even bother to point out it's not all funded by the licence fee anyway ?

Perhaps you can tell us the other funding arrangements ?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I think the BBC decided that we should be interested in Mandela's funeral - that is their political inclination. I know of no one that was remotely interested.

 

[Rhossydd]

I did. And I saw jollies.

Lucky you.
All the foreign trips I did(and do) for the BBC are damn hard work. Jolly is rarely a term used by the people who actually have to go abroad and work.

Possibly not. Are you able to? How do you work it out?

Well you could start by working out the air time and dividing it by the number of staff it takes. You've said yourself there was a lot of coverage that you saw, we in the UK only see a part of the whole amount transmitted.

Do they compare the number of people other major international broadcasters sent ?

Nine from ITV allegedly.[/quote]
ITV an international broadcaster ? Come on, they don't register on the global scale. Look at the teams sent by ABC or NBC, on most major events they end up sending as many as ten times as many staff as the BBC for much less coverage.

Do they even bother to point out it's not all funded by the licence fee anyway ?

Perhaps you can tell us the other funding arrangements ?[/quote]
The UK Government subsidises a lot of the international output, World service, world news etc. It's not as simple as 'Licence payer's money' on such wide ranging events as this.

 

[JustBen]

What has everyone got against the Daily Mail?
Yes they lie, yes they spew twaddle but doesn't every other paper?
I don't believe there is a single paper in the world that speaks only the truth and doesn't glorify news.
Btw, I don't read papers, they're all full of trash.

I do think the licence fees are high, but I soon forget about it when I see clarkson and his gang of merry men acting the fool.

 

[Karl]

I do think the licence fees are high, but I soon forget about it when I see clarkson and his gang of merry men acting the fool.

Whilst I disagree, one of my 8 year olds shares your sentiments about TG - he loves it ! If he knew what a licence fee was, he'd approve :lol:

Cheers

Karl

 

[KevM]

I watched a reasonable amount of the coverage,although not all of it, in fact just sufficient for me. I suppose I should point out that I had, rather fortunately as it turns out, treated myself to one of those fancy Japanese TVs with a remote control channel changing facility and an off button.

 

[mailee]

I watched a reasonable amount of the coverage,although not all of it, in fact just sufficient for me. I suppose I should point out that I had, rather fortunately as it turns out, treated myself to one of those fancy Japanese TVs with a remote control channel changing facility and an off button.

Problem with that is that the remote doesn't stop the licence fee. :lol:

 

[fetteler]

I did. And I saw jollies.

Lucky you.
All the foreign trips I did(and do) for the BBC are damn hard work. Jolly is rarely a term used by the people who actually have to go abroad and work.

Possibly not. Are you able to? How do you work it out?

Well you could start by working out the air time and dividing it by the number of staff it takes. You've said yourself there was a lot of coverage that you saw, we in the UK only see a part of the whole amount transmitted.

Do they compare the number of people other major international broadcasters sent ?

Nine from ITV allegedly.

ITV an international broadcaster ? Come on, they don't register on the global scale. Look at the teams sent by ABC or NBC, on most major events they end up sending as many as ten times as many staff as the BBC for much less coverage.

Do they even bother to point out it's not all funded by the licence fee anyway ?

Perhaps you can tell us the other funding arrangements ?[ /quote]
The UK Government subsidises a lot of the international output, World service, world news etc. It's not as simple as 'Licence payer's money' on such wide ranging events as this.
[/quote]





Well said. I have to simply agree with your rebuttal of the negative comments as I am so angered by the criticism of the BBC here that I can't be reasonable at the moment. The appreciation by the general public of what goes into public service broadcasting never fails to underwhelm me.

Crikey.

Steve.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

The BBC is nothing more than the PR department of the Guardian, and would go broke in the real world. That we have to pay a licence fee to fund the BBC when we wish watch other channels is beyond justification, and completely ludicrous.

 

[rafezetter]

ITV an international broadcaster ? Come on, they don't register on the global scale. Look at the teams sent by ABC or NBC, on most major events they end up sending as many as ten times as many staff as the BBC for much less coverage.

Those broadcasters you mention are not paid by taxpayers FORCED to pay or face fines; confiscation of property or even jail - enough said.

The UK Government subsidises a lot of the international output, World service, world news etc. It's not as simple as 'Licence payer's money' on such wide ranging events as this.

And just how many of UK residents actually USE the international / world service output to other countries? I'd safely hazard a minute fraction of the people being taxed for it.

It's 3 quid a week!

How many charities say they can make life altering changes to less fortunate people for this amount - now imagine all those to do not wish to pay for a TV licence giving it to them instead... LOTS of £3's per week in the right place could do wonders.

I personally watch only a few of the BBC programs output, and feel if they had to fight for their market share like all the others do maybe some things would change for the better - even actors and such on tv have the quote "well it IS the BBC" - usually in a slightly disparaging tone, and they rely on the BBC to pay them. When even those who's livelihoods rely on money from said company still disparage it, you KNOW something's amiss.

 

[MIGNAL]

£3 per week to a charity. £2.90 per week on admin/wages. They aren't anything to write home about, believe me.
Licence, subscription, advertising costs. We all pay, one way or the other. It's actually near on impossible to avoid paying for the advertising levy. At £3 per week I happen to think that the beeb is pretty good value for money. I don't watch a great deal of TV but I simply can't listen to commercial radio. I also think the beeb website is one of the best on the entire net, pretty comprehensive and it's highly thought of throughout the world.

 

[RogerS]

Ssshh..perhaps I'd better not mention the £100 MILLION write-off of that bungled IT system.

Or the utterly incompetent BBC Trust led by that fat egregious buffoon Fattie Pattie

Or the total dumbing down of Classic FM-Lite.....aka Radio 3

 

[MIGNAL]

Everyone has bungled IT systems. Par for the course for anything to do with IT. It's just that the big systems for the public organisations get all the publicity about it.
You mean Classic FM is better :shock: Lol!!! Everytime my dial zooms past Classic FM they are playing the Four seasons! Again and again and . . . you get the idea. It's sickly. Commercial radio. No thanks.

 

[MMUK]

Everyone has bungled IT systems. Par for the course for anything to do with IT. It's just that the big systems for the public organisations get all the publicity about it.
You mean Classic FM is better :shock: Lol!!! Everytime my dial zooms past Classic FM they are playing the Four seasons! Again and again and . . . you get the idea. It's sickly. Commercial radio. No thanks.

You obviously don't tune in that often then. I'm a regular listener and I've only heard Four Seasons once in the past week.

 

[Cottonwood]

I think the BBC decided that we should be interested in Mandela's funeral - that is their political inclination.

Thats about it. The bbc is for mummys boys-Mummy knows best :roll: The bbc seem to have very fixed and determined views on all the "issues" of the day, that-in the public interest-we the people should unquestioningly adopt. They no longer do reasonable robust debate (as happened when I was younger), allowing real unstaged face to face conflict of difficult opposing views (Because THEIR position might get undermined and the nation might be exposed to awful nasty non bbc ideas) Instead we get yet another sanitised mummys boy spouting yet another patronising lecture-ie the bbc's version of the "facts".

Its so funny, to hear some mummys boys speak youd think the d m journos were all raving liars-and they probaly are :lol: . But did anyone ever stop to think that bbc people might lie too, or distort facts to make their point? Are their any liars working for the guardian or the telegraph or the independent? The people of Liverpool know about the sun. Do they all tell the truth? LOL Or is it just that when someone is having their socio-political prejudices reinforced, it dont matter if they are told a few "white lies"?

I do not "value" the bbc one iota :lol: . It smacks of desperation to be lectured in a condescending manner that I SHOULD do. If the bbc was that good, it wouldnt need to keep telling us how wonderful it is as an organisation, we would know it already. I mean, they cant even be bothered to pay out to cover England rugby games during the A I's :roll: ....
Even so I wouldnt object to their existence-apart from the fact that, legally, I have to pay an inane license fee every year to subsidise it.

 

[Rhossydd]

The BBC is nothing more than the PR department of the Guardian,

As a previous DG said;
When the right think the BBC is left biased and the left think it's right biased, we've got it right.

Do you really want to be left to your own devices and get left with free market television ?
Travel abroad and watch TV a bit, see how much it costs and what the quality is like, then come back and have a considered view having seen the alternative.

 

[MickCheese]

I do however have about a 100 channels on my computer and now and again watch a good documentary or a good film.

Out of interest would I need a licence to watch catchup TV on the computer?

Mick

 

[RogerS]

I do however have about a 100 channels on my computer and now and again watch a good documentary or a good film.

Out of interest would I need a licence to watch catchup TV on the computer?

Mick

No you don't. Only to watch BBC in realtime on your computer (or mobile phone, for that matter)

 

[RogerS]

The BBC is nothing more than the PR department of the Guardian,

As a previous DG said;
When the right think the BBC is left biased and the left think it's right biased, we've got it right.

Do you really want to be left to your own devices and get left with free market television ?
Travel abroad and watch TV a bit, see how much it costs and what the quality is like, then come back and have a considered view having seen the alternative.

Well, we do have free market TV in this country, surely? ITV, Channel 4, Five and of course Sky.

Once upon a time I would have been in agreement with your points but not these days. The BBC is unaccountable. The BBC Trust is an inept inadequate feeble nepotistic bunch of numpties.

As for the BBC, we find that there is less and less of their offerings to be bothered watching. Where have all the good comedies gone? Watching Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads reminded us of just how good the BBC was once upon a time.

Their flagship topical affairs radio programme Today has gone as sensationalist as the Daily Mail. For example, yesterday when the report into GP practices came out, they mentioned the maggots which the author of the report took great pains to point out was 1 instance. Yes, there should not be maggots in a doctor's surgery. But the BBC blew this up all out of proportion and it featured in every news item later that day. Pure tabloid journalism.

The same programme trivialised what could have been a proper report into the whole issue about DAB and the suggested FM Switchoff.