TV licence fee

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by Morecambe Ex Pat

In the early days, the licence fee was to pay for and maintain the numerous transmitters for both radio & TV and to fund the operation of a TV channel and several radio services.

Over the years the BBC has taken on a life of its own and the small licence fee has had to be increased substantially to pay for the many additional services it now offers. Just how they justify exhorbitant contracts to tempt 'popular' celebs on to the network is a major issue. Recent events have shown that the BBC is run by indecisive management and only public pressure forced them to act.

I always thought that making indecent phone calls was a criminal offence or have the mamby pamby PC brigade made upsetting others, acceptable too.

I quite like Jonathan Ross as a radio broadcaster but there is no place on Radio 2 for radical presenters to do their 'own thing'. Should Radio 2 stick with the likes of Wogan, Bruce, Evans and Wright? I say yes, let the weird and wacky find radio work elsewhere and leave Radio 2 to churn out good middle of the road entertainment for which they are best known.

I rarely hear Wogan but on the very odd occasion when I get up early enough his banter has been amenable and his Janet and John tales have been hilarious. I admired his efforts for “Children In Need” until it was revealed that he was paid to host the TV extravaganza.

Ken Bruce is good and presents an enjoyable programme. The repartee between him and the travel totty Lynn Bowles is never offensive.

Chris Evans is like a breath of fresh air at 5:00pm after taking over from Steve Wright. Especially the fox the fox bit. Foxy’s skill in finding out the answers to some very awkward questions sent in by the listeners is legendry. I cannot recall her ever being stumped. Sally “Traffic” Bosman adds to the entertainment. My only complaint is why doesn’t Chris have a man’s minute? Men drive cars too. But then he couldn’t flirt with men.

Steve Wright is just background noise for me. There seems to be a bit of tension between him and Tim Smith that almost surfaces from time to time but is disguised by “only joking”. My biggest gripe against that programme, both Steve and Tim deliberately mispronounce words and these mispronunciations could be picked up by youngsters.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by andrewb

The £4.3billion figure is from the whole of the BBC. That is licence fee, commercial revenue and world service. The BBC that we view on tv etc is fully funded by the licence fee. The BBC need government approval when setting the licence fee. However at the end of the day the licence is collected and used by the BBC, if the BBC didn't exist anymore, we would not be paying the licence fee because we don't pay it to the government, we pay it to the BBC.

Avoiding the “Administrator” point I see.

OK! I’ll ask outright. Have you been made Administrator of this forum?

As for the rest, I have no intention of repeating myself ad nausium. Go and read and more importantly understand the acts relating to the funding of the BBC.

[lancsdave]

Originally Posted by jambutty

Avoiding the “Administrator” point I see.

OK! I’ll ask outright. Have you been made Administrator of this forum?

http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f...ewb-43242.html

[Neil]

Originally Posted by jambutty

Avoiding the “Administrator” point I see.

OK! I’ll ask outright. Have you been made Administrator of this forum?

Yes he has, thats why it says so and his name is black. Black is for Mods and up only.

There was a thread about it http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f...ewb-43242.html

[jambutty]

Much obliged guys.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by jambutty

Much obliged guys.

Now you can see he's not avoiding your question, you can go and post your congratulations in the old thread, which Roy started for him.

[Tin Monkey]

Originally Posted by andrewb

The BBC that we view on tv etc is fully funded by the licence fee.

Actually, only 75% of the funding provided to the BBC comes from the licence fee, the remaining funding comes via other sources, such as BBC Worldwide, the BBC's commercial arm.

Ofcom are currently looking at options regarding public service broadcasting in the UK, particularly in light of the digital switchover. One option being considered is to distribute the licence fee funds to all companies that bid for PSB services, so companies such as ITV, C4 and Sky could get a cut of it too.
The option of giving all PSB responsibilities to the BBC and so releasing C4, C5 and ITV from such duties, was disregarded a couple of weeks ago.

If you want a picture of a publicly owned provider that has to exist on advertising to exist and no public funding, just take a look at C4. Just take a look at the typical C4 schedule and you'll see what I mean.

If the licence fee ensures that the BBC continues to produce the quality of provision that it does, then I'm more than happy to pay my 38p per day. Of course many people will disagree, but then again most people would choose to pay nothing if they had a choice, even if they don't see the full implications.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Tin Monkey

If you want a picture of a publicly owned provider that has to exist on advertising to exist and no public funding, just take a look at C4. Just take a look at the typical C4 schedule and you'll see what I mean.

I do, quite regularly, as there are more programmes on there that I find interesting to watch, than the guff they put on the B.B.C.

[steeljack]

OK here in the US I get on BBCAmerica the Graham Norton show , not too bad, a bit 'silly' in parts but tolerable, and the locals like him , never seen this Ross/Woss person On BBCAmerica , obviously the BBC don't think he is worth exporting , so why is he being paid so much...... do the Aussies/ Kiwis /Canucks and Boers like him so much


not sure if this is the right thread ....Mods please feel free to move to the BBC Ross/ Sachs thread if felt neccessary , thanks

[garinda]

Originally Posted by steeljack

OK here in the US I get on BBCAmerica the Graham Norton show , not too bad, a bit 'silly' in parts but tolerable, and the locals like him

They probably like him because they remember him from the baths, as for many years he lived in San Francisco.

[Tin Monkey]

Originally Posted by garinda

I do, quite regularly, as there are more programmes on there that I find interesting to watch, than the guff they put on the B.B.C.

Maybe the over-reliance on reality formats and pseudo-documentaries appeal to some, but the overall quality of C4 has dipped significantly over the last few years.

Mind you, the channel's remit requires it to appeal to minority audiences, so perhaps it's achieving something afterall?

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Tin Monkey

Maybe the over-reliance on reality formats and pseudo-documentaries appeal to some, but the overall quality of C4 has dipped significantly over the last few years.

Mind you, the channel's remit requires it to appeal to minority audiences, so perhaps it's achieving something afterall?

I agree that the quality of programmes on Channel 4 isn't as good as twenty years ago. Though I still prefer it to the dross broadcast on the B.B.C., much of it a poor copy of what they see as ratings winners on I.T.V. 1.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Tin Monkey

Maybe the over-reliance on reality formats and pseudo-documentaries appeal to some, but the overall quality of C4 has dipped significantly over the last few years.

Mind you, the channel's remit requires it to appeal to minority audiences, so perhaps it's achieving something afterall?

You should take a trip to Scotland, and watch what the B.B.C. puts on in answer to Coronation Street.

At least River City, which has cost us over £20 million pounds, would have one viewer.

[Tin Monkey]

Originally Posted by garinda

I agree that the quality of programmes on Channel 4 isn't as good as twenty years ago. Though I still prefer it to the dross broadcast on the B.B.C., much of it a poor copy of what they see as ratings winners on I.T.V. 1.

Whilst that is true of BBC1, the same can't be said for BBC2 and BBC4. Those channels show many programmes that would never see the light of day on ITV.

You also have to remember that BBC1 and ITV1 are competing for the same target audience, so there's bound to be a crossover of provision.

[garinda]

Perhaps if you were a little more discerning in your viewing habbits, and not so blinkered, it would help your quiz scores.