Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 92

Thread: Scrap the BBC

  1. #1
    Master Stagger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Its a secret!
    Posts
    9,888

    Scrap the BBC

    Scrap the BBC Channel and scrap TV licences.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48583487
    A quote,

    "The greatest accomplishment is not in never falling, but in rising again after you fall."

  2. #2
    Master DrPatrickBarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Marple, Manchester
    Posts
    2,851
    Never did understand why a very wealthy pensioner gets all these benifits but somebody who is being abused by the UK's easy hire and fire work practices, gets none of them. Well done BBC, it is time to face reality, working people just cannot continue to fund the ever increasing dependancy ratio.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    454
    Quote Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry View Post
    Never did understand why a very wealthy pensioner gets all these benifits but somebody who is being abused by the UK's easy hire and fire work practices, gets none of them. Well done BBC, it is time to face reality, working people just cannot continue to fund the ever increasing dependancy ratio.
    Not all pensioners are wealthy far from it.

    And the demographic timebomb is an unfolding disaster. The unnaccounted pension cost debt is 2 trillion at actuarial rates. The ratios are getting out of hand.

    No government has ever had the balls to do it, but since 2008 the only option has been to halve public sector final salary pensions, all of them, because as the 15 year bond rate has halved because of MP directed central bank obsession with cheap money so annuity rates have fallen to less than half, so too must pensions. And the public sector need to feel the same pain.

    MPs will never do it, their own pension is a disgrace to the taxpayer. It is twice as good as all but firemen. And even that is not as ridiculous as Euro MP pensions which is double that again.

    Far from Corbyn spending more money, he needs to work out how to chop it down by 20 percent at least just to keep present levels of pensions viable.

    On the BBC however I think you are wrong. Until paying for the BBC becomes optional, the old age waiver should stay.

  4. #4
    Master DrPatrickBarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Marple, Manchester
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Not all pensioners are wealthy far from it.
    Why is that relevant and who said they are? The number of households on pension credit could number 1.5 million by 2020 when this change comes in. They will not pay.

    I do agree with you on the BBC being optional, in the modern era, with so many entertainment options the idea of a compulsory payment is crazy.

    I do however think the BBC is value for money, but then I don't subscribe to anything, but for many people it will be the exact opposite.
    Last edited by DrPatrickBarry; 10-06-2019 at 04:16 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    454
    The point I make is the overwhelming majority are not "wealthy" in most contexts.

    Just as those in the top band tax that get guillotined by osbornes pension reforms are a tiny proportion: but those reforms are simply unfair on entrepreneurs. :-(

    With the normal hopeless inefficiency of every public service, the cost of means testing to eliminate the few would be far more than it would ever save.


    Quote Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry View Post
    Why is that relevant and who said they are? The number of households on pension credit could number 1.5 million by 2020 when this change comes in. They will not pay.

    I do agree with you on the BBC being optional, in the modern era, with so many entertainment options the idea of a compulsory payment is crazy.

    I do however think the BBC is value for money, but then I don't subscribe to anything, but for many people it will be the exact opposite.
    Last edited by Oracle; 10-06-2019 at 04:23 PM.

  6. #6
    Master Muddy Retriever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Muddy puddle at Temple Newsam
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry View Post
    I do agree with you on the BBC being optional, in the modern era, with so many entertainment options the idea of a compulsory payment is crazy.

    I do however think the BBC is value for money, but then I don't subscribe to anything, but for many people it will be the exact opposite.
    I agree with you that it is an anachronism in this day and age. I disagree that it is value for money and I think it would be very hard for it be so given its funding structure. Unlike other broadcasters it has no incentive to innovate or make economies. It's income stream is set for a number of years through the licence fee. A good example was the controversy a couple of years ago when it emerged that male presenters were being paid more than their female counterparts. What shocked me at the time was not the amount that the female presenters were being paid but rather the exorbitant amounts the male ones like John Humphreys were being paid. He was "earning" between 600k to 650k for presenting the Radio 4 Today programme. Which other broadcasting organisation could afford to pay so much for this type of programme with such a small audience?

    It's not even as if the BBC is impartial these days (or even tries to be). If I want an exclusively metropolitan liberal woke world view I can choose to read the Guardian. I object to being taxed for the privilege.

  7. #7
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Within sight of Leicestershire's Beacon Hill
    Posts
    1,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever View Post
    What shocked me at the time was not the amount that the female presenters were being paid but rather the exorbitant amounts the male ones like John Humphreys were being paid. He was "earning" between 600k to 650k for presenting the Radio 4 Today programme. Which other broadcasting organisation could afford to pay so much for this type of programme with such a small audience?
    Small audience? 6.8million, and that's after losing around 800,000 listeners over the last year. And the leading politicians do still think it's worth appearing on the programme. Anyway, I would probably demand 600k if I had to come to work at 4.30am

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever View Post
    It's not even as if the BBC is impartial these days (or even tries to be). If I want an exclusively metropolitan liberal woke world view I can choose to read the Guardian. I object to being taxed for the privilege.
    The reason for the recent loss of audience (see above) is indeed attributed to perceived bias: apparently the BBC is "too soft on Brexiteers" and has been showing "overt hostility" to the Labour left. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8474691.html
    In his lifetime he suffered from unreality, as do so many Englishmen.
    Jorge Luis Borges

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    116
    To be fair to the BBC, it has been missed in most of the reporting that it is the government who decided to remove this free TV license benefit, not the BBC.
    When free TV licenses for over-75s were introduced, the government paid the BBC the money "lost" due to the free licenses. The government decided to stop providing this money to the BBC.

    Everyone says the government has to cut spending, this seems like a reasonable way to cut spending.

    I'd caveat my answer by saying that I think the TV license is a stupid way to raise funds for the BBC in this day and age. It would seem much more reasonable just to put it in general (income?) tax and give the BBC its stiped from there. No more need to pay the tv licensing company, or take people to court for non-payment, or pay for people to stay in jail and all the other associated costs.

    I'd further say that the BBC does seem to over-reach its remit. I kinda don't really see why it has to do so much as it does, the massive internet presence, so many radio and tv stations making 24 hours coverage... I really would not have a problem if the BBC cut back on what it does.

    I do believe that there is a place for a public service broadcaster to make the valuable documentary/arts/investigative/news items which it would not be commercially viable for a commercial broadcaster to make. In arts for example it is enriching to be introduced to new or alternative music/drama/literature that we may not otherwise discover. Otherwise we'd just be left with a regurgitation of the mass appeal stuff which a commercial broadcaster can guarantee to make money on. I don't think they need to make quite as much/any(?) of the gameshows, soaps, etc etc, and why do we need 24 hour news, 3 in depth news reports a day would be enough and if you miss one, you can watch it on catch-up.

  9. #9
    Master Muddy Retriever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Muddy puddle at Temple Newsam
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by anthonykay View Post
    Anyway, I would probably demand 600k if I had to come to work at 4.30am
    There are plenty of people who work unsociable hours.

    According to Humphreys himself, he never asked for this amount of money. They just kept increasing his salary. Perhaps if they were more concerned about how they were going to pay for it they might have been a little less generous.

    Not to mention all the BBC executives on ridiculous salaries.

    The reason for the recent loss of audience (see above) is indeed attributed to perceived bias: apparently the BBC is "too soft on Brexiteers" and has been showing "overt hostility" to the Labour left. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8474691.html
    Too soft on Brexiteer's, hilarious! For a long time the Today programme didn't seem to acknowledge that people wanting to leave the EU even existed.

    Surveys done by News-watch showed that of 4,275 guests talking about the EU on Radio 4s Today programme in survey periods between 2005 and 2015, only 132 (3.2 per cent) were supporters of the UKs withdrawal from the EU.

  10. #10
    Master DrPatrickBarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Marple, Manchester
    Posts
    2,851
    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever View Post
    Surveys done by News-watch showed that of 4,275 guests talking about the EU on Radio 4’s Today programme in survey periods between 2005 and 2015, only 132 (3.2 per cent) were supporters of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
    I listen to that program and that statistic is rediculous. Does Farage and Brexiteer politicans get counted as one or one for each appearance?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •