tele licence - Page 6

MUMMIBOO · 07-02-2006, 13:38

I would'nt mind but i do have a licence but they dont want to come and see it!!

Tealeaf · 07-02-2006, 13:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

In.

If there were no licence fee the government would have to get the money to run the BBC by increasing taxes or close the BBC down. .

If the BBC is so good, then it should be able to exist like any other commercial channel - by advertising revenue. It carries large volumes of advertisments already - for itself. I am sick and tired of having to watch idiots poncing around in wheelchairs or dangling from some rooftop in the increasingly-long intermission between programmes. How much money is wasted on this? Not only that, it's political neutrality has long gone - it now has an agenda lying somewhere between that of the Liberal Sodomites - sorry, "Democrats" - and Al-Quida. The sooner it goes, the better.

MUMMIBOO · 07-02-2006, 13:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by pendy

I don't object so much to the licence fee, what I object to is the Big Brother attitude of the Licensing people. London is peppered with ads on buses and tube stations saying virtually "We know where you live". "Get in touch with us. If you don't - fine". Nice play on the word "fine" there.

We have had endless trouble with these people. We do not have a TV licence because we do not have a TV. However, when David wrote to tell them this, they wrote back saying "Fine, thank you, but we want access to your home to check" - i.e. we think you're lying. We refused access, and the whole process of letters, visits, etc, started again. THIS IS A TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY!!! Big Brother says that he can park his detector van outside your property and tell you which room your TV is in, even if it is switched off. Fine. Do that. It wastes less money. It might be interesting to see how much of the licence fee is wasted on pursuing people who choose not to have TVs.

If you dont have a telly Pendy where do you point all your furniture?

pendy · 07-02-2006, 13:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by MUMMIBOO

If you dont have a telly Pendy where do you point all your furniture?

Round the fire and under the reading lamp!

garinda · 07-02-2006, 15:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

I am sick and tired of having to watch idiots poncing around in wheelchairs or dangling from some rooftop in the increasingly-long intermission between programmes. How much money is wasted on this?

The last time they changed the between programme logos it cost sixty millon pounds.

I also agree, they do advertise already, themselves, for approximately six minutes per hour.

Gayle · 07-02-2006, 21:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

If the BBC is so good, then it should be able to exist like any other commercial channel - by advertising revenue. It carries large volumes of advertisments already - for itself. How much money is wasted on this?

Not that I make a point of agreeing with you but on this one I think I might have to!

Neil · 08-02-2006, 08:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

The last time they changed the between programme logos it cost sixty millon pounds.

£60,000,000 WOW. Why don't they just make the programes a tad longer or start them sooner? Oh yes I know the answer to my own question. The programes have to be that length so the adverts fit when they sell them to other TV stations like UKGold and others.

SPUGGIE J · 08-02-2006, 12:38

If they can sell their "offerings" then why do we still get reamed for more money every year?

garinda · 08-02-2006, 16:46

The Independent reports on the BBC’s expenses bill, which under the Freedom of Information Act is open to public scrutiny. The corporation spent £19.5m on flights and £16m on accommodation. Director general Mark Thompson’s expenses bill apparently included £8.75 on a meal in a motorway cafe and £1.75 for a phone call.

garinda · 08-02-2006, 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

The Independent reports on the BBC’s expenses bill, which under the Freedom of Information Act is open to public scrutiny. The corporation spent £19.5m on flights and £16m on accommodation. Director general Mark Thompson’s expenses bill apparently included £8.75 on a meal in a motorway cafe and £1.75 for a phone call.

While I have a bee in my bonnet, the BBC paid Graham Norton 3.5 million pounds in 2003, when they poached him from Channel 4. They didn't even have a vehicle planned for him at the time.

In the time since then he's presented a disco dancing competition and a thirty five minute chat show, which started airing on Fridays this year.

Will this expense bring the Beeb more viewers? I think not.

The money could have been better spent nurturing new talent, but the BBC seems to think 'it's' money is better spent aping the more successful proframmes from independent television companies.

jambutty · 08-02-2006, 18:03

I accept that the BBC does splash out money like confetti but that is a different issue to the TV licence.

SPUGGIE J · 08-02-2006, 20:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

I accept that the BBC does splash out money like confetti but that is a different issue to the TV licence.

Disagree with that JB since they throw this money about without a care then havethe audacity to ask for more and as a rule they get it.

Gayle · 08-02-2006, 21:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

I accept that the BBC does splash out money like confetti but that is a different issue to the TV licence.

Why is it a different issue - we pay our licence, they use £3.5m of it to pay for a presenter that has barely presented any programmes since he got poached?

garinda · 08-02-2006, 22:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

I accept that the BBC does splash out money like confetti but that is a different issue to the TV licence.

They could do what they hell they like with their money, if they still weren't primarily funded by the licence fee.

Granada television could line the bar of the Rovers Return in gold leaf if they so wished, the fact is they have earned their right to do so by competing in the market place, something the BBC doesn't have to do at the moment.

BBC Scotland spent sixty million pounds on a Scottish soap that we don't even get here, and not many people in Scotland bother to watch either.

Then there was the financial disaster El Doraldo, the soap set in Spain with it's purpose built set and cast of muppets.................

SPUGGIE J · 08-02-2006, 22:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

BBC Scotland spent sixty million pounds on a Scottish soap that we don't even get here, and not many people in Scotland bother to watch either.

I would not recommend River City to anyone not even as a form of punishment. It has been a huge waste of money and air time. Bring back Take The High Road.