Is the licence fee worth it? Poll discussion

greytroot

Wouldn't it be good if the bbc, yearly in arrears, let us the public pay what we thought they were worth.

You know how there are a few stately homes and museums that let you pay when you leave and all they ask is pay what you think the visit was worth.

Now I'd happily pay the bbc what I think they were worth, yearly and on time.

Maybe we should vote on how much we think the bbc is actually worth. Then sell it with a proviso that no adverts for 5 amount of years or whatever.

Or what about a bbc pay per view box then you only pay for what you actually view on bbc. (yeah i do know that radio etc is included.)

As for the "its only a small amount folk" its quite a big amount when you are retired and entitled to no state benefits at all.
:T

Defiant_3

THE BBC has paid out nearly £20million in staff bonuses — as trust in its programmes sinks to an all-time low.
A staggering £19,429,853 was dished out during the 12 months to June 30 — more than £2million up on last year.
A further £232,000 was shared by EIGHT executive board members — with BBC Worldwide chief John Smith bagging £87,000.
Nearly half the corporation’s 23,000 employees received bonuses, with the average totalling £1,805.
One worker was given £100,739.
The total payout — equal to 143,000 annual licence fees — comes with the BBC desperate to regain public confidence after a series of phoneline scandals, faked shows and the Crowngate affair, which saw execs apologise to the Queen.
A recent poll found 59 per cent of licence-payers trust it less than before.
The £20million figure was not revealed in last month’s annual report.
And chiefs refused to say who got the top ten payouts — other than executive board members on that list.
The cash was handed last August to staff who met “performance targets” in the previous year.
Another round of bonuses is due this month.
Last year’s payments followed a year in which BBC director general Mark Thompson slashed 2,340 jobs under his ‘Value For Money’ scheme.
More are due to go after a lower-than-expected licence fee deal.
A BBC spokesman said: “Bonuses are part of staff’s contractual entitlement.”

WHO GOT
THE MOST
THESE are the Top ten bonuses paid between July ’06 and June ’07.
Only executive board members were named.
1. £100,739
2. £87,000 (To John Smith)
3. £86,925
4. £76,371
5. £64,849
6. £60,390
7. £46,445
8. £45,600
9. £41,940
10. £40,000 (To Deputy Director General Mark Byford)

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2001320029-2007360302,00.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/view/15825/BBC-pays-out-nearly-£20m-in-bonuses

This remember after they've been telling everyone that they'll have to show more repeats because they've got no money. Let's see they spent £20 million on taxis last year too so it would be interesting what the total for that will be this year too

impy78

Defiant wrote: »

Gotcha, I knew you worked for them and they always slip up in the end



How about it being calculated on those that want your employer ?

As I have posted several times already, and have made a huge point of posting (ie read the following CAREFULLY):

I do not work for the BBC, I have never worked for the BBC, but I am an actor (as I have posted 7 times now) and therefore, of course I want to work for them. (As I have posted 4 times now)


As for it being calculated by people who want it, can I therefore pay no tax for the military/nuclear arms, nuclear power, roads, quangos, the olympics, the royal family, Ken Livingston, Academy schools, Craft, design technology lessons in schools hospital admin idiots and crazy millennium dome type projects, please, as I do not use any of these, I do not want them, I did not ask for them, and I don't want to pay for them.

I pay over £100 a week and yet I have not subscribed to any of these services..why?


Does this give you an idea of how silly the above argument is becoming?

Defiant_3

impy78 wrote: »

As I have posted several times already, and have made a huge point of posting (ie read the following CAREFULLY):

Don't try it on with me Imp you slipped and said,

impy78 wrote: »

People not paying and taking away my future wages are not bad people either!

impy78 wrote: »

As for it being calculated by people who want it, can I therefore pay no tax for the military/nuclear arms, nuclear power, roads

Fine if you don't want to live in a civilised country that has vital public services go live in Africa but I think you'll find your employer isn't a vitial public service its a ruddy broadcaster that has commercial alternatives :rolleyes:

Be honest for once Imp if the BBC was so good you wouldn't have a problem subscribing to it duh

impy78 wrote: »

Does this give you an idea of how silly the above argument is becoming?

Hahaha and being forced to pay for the BBC which is a minoritys entertainment isn't silly, sorry but your getting really pathetic now.

impy78

Defiant wrote: »

Don't try it on with me Imp you slipped and said,

Fine if you don't wat to live in a civilised country that has vital public services go live in Africa but I think you'll find your employer isn't a vitial public service its a ruddy broadcaster that has commercial counter parts :rolleyes:

I don't think that nuclear arms are a "public service" and we have enough roads, which obviously need to be maintained, but building any more is just damaging the environment. Also nuclear power is becoming more and more obsolete as a source of power, it is dangerous and with so many alternative sources, the only reason we use it is minimal financial costs. But the environmental costs and potential human cost is hardly conceivable. If nuclear arms can be counted as a public service when there are "civilised" countries out there who manage fine without, then public service TV is one too.

I was merely jesting about not paying my tax, as this is a democracy, and I have to abide by the laws that are decided on my behalf.

Maybe if you hate the BBC so much, maybe you are the one who should move to America with its superior television with the 10 minutes of programme interspersed with 30 of adverts.

As for me "slipping". If I worked for the BBC, I would be all over here bragging about it, or you would have seen me on TV (well, obviously not you personally), I used the word "future"...future as in something which is not happening NOW???

Are you sure you don't work for Sky, or ITV, as you seem to be the one most personally and emotionally affected by this debate. Far more than is warranted by £135. I have a minimum wage job, and it still isn't even a week's wages.

Edited to add:

Defiant wrote: »

Be honest for once Imp if the BBC was so good you wouldn't have a problem subscribing to it duh

Your memory appears to be short....You already asked me if I was willing to subscribe to the BBC if that was the way it went and I said "Yes, I would"

Page 16, post 301

Defiant_3

impy78 wrote: »

I don't think that nuclear arms are a "public service"

Yes now more than ever with the Islamic nutters getting access to them but do everyone a favour Mr BBC and try staying on topic

impy78 wrote: »

and we have enough roads, which obviously need to be maintained, but building any more is just damaging the environment.

Only 1/3 of the road fund tax is spend on the roads so hows that costing you ever anything ? you are saving money at the expense of the motorist.

impy78 wrote: »

I was merely jesting about not paying my tax, as this is a democracy, and I have to abide by the laws that are decided on my behalf.

WOULD YOU SUBSIDISE THOSE WHO HAVE TO PAY FOR THE BBC BUT WOULD RATHER YOU PAY FOR THEIR CABLE & SKY TV BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT THE MIGHTY BBC YES OR NO ?

impy78 wrote: »

Maybe if you hate the BBC so much, maybe you are the one who should move to America with its superior television with the 10 minutes of programme interspersed with 30 of adverts.

So anyone who doesn't want to pay for the mighty BBC should move to America hmm well the BBC would callapse then anyway because its only a small minority that wants it DUH

Ps I have no issues with adverts and if you bothered to read this thread you'd know this and you'd also know they have the same amount of ads as in the uk (trust the BBC to keep on repeating stuff)

impy78 wrote: »

As for me "slipping". If I worked for the BBC

You've slipped and admitted it so please try it with someone else :rolleyes:

impy78 wrote: »

Are you sure you don't work for Sky, or ITV, as you seem to be the one most personally and emotionally affected by this debate. Far more than is warranted by £135. I have a minimum wage job, and it still isn't even a week's wages.

Oh yes reverse psychology I've not heard this one before either thats really going to make everyone think the BBC should be forced fed our cash, looser

impy78

Defiant wrote:

You've slipped and admitted it so please try it with someone else :rolleyes:

Where? Where have I admitted it..I said "People taking away my FUTURE wages."

Wages that I do not get because I don't work for them yet, but I will.


A) Yes I am willing to pay a subscription to the BBC if it went private.

You should really try listening. It might help.

You don't even pay the tv licence fee as you've already said, so you've
really got no right to complain as this issue does not concern you.

Just keep on tearing up those letters. But in the mean time, stop the selective copying and pasting and the misquoting/misunderstanding (deliberately I hope for your own sake) because you are making a fool of yourself.

You made some really good points, but now, it appears I am talking to a 13-year-old chav on the back seat of the bus. And I don't waste my time doing that. I thought you were going to have a civilised adult discussion, apparently not.

ckerrd

Just passing so I thought I'd pop in.

Still see this is a daft as ever

Ps I have no issues with adverts and if you bothered to read this thread you'd know this and you'd also know they have the same amount of ads as in the uk (trust the BBC to keep on repeating stuff)

Now don't be a naughty boy you know that this is simply a lie.

Carry on

Defiant_3

impy78 wrote: »

Where? Where have I admitted it..I said "People taking away my FUTURE wages."

Wages that I do not get because I don't work for them yet, but I will.

hahaha yea right

impy78 wrote: »

You don't even pay the tv licence fee as you've already said, so you've
really got no right to complain as this issue does not concern you.

So being classed as a criminal all because I refuse to help fund your entertainment means I have no right to complain or be concerned :huh:

impy78 wrote: »

Just keep on tearing up those letters.

That would be a waste so I use them in the WC

impy78 wrote: »

But in the mean time, stop the selective copying and pasting and the misquoting/misunderstanding

It can annoy people when they get caught out and then come up with silly excuses to get out of it

impy78 wrote: »

You made some really good points, but now, it appears I am talking to a 13-year-old chav on the back seat of the bus. And I don't waste my time doing that.

Oh that hurt a dig from a leftie BBC employee :rolleyes:

Ps if you really expect people to believe you don't work for them why are you so intersted in this thread and spent so much time here trying to defend them lol

Defiant_3

ckerrd wrote: »

Just passing so I thought I'd pop in.

Still see this is a daft as ever



Now don't be a naughty boy you know that this is simply a lie.

Carry on

I'VE POSTED PROOF WITH LINKS YOU'VE JUST GIVEN AN OPINION PUT OVER AS A FACT. WHY DON'T YOU READ THE DVD RUNTIMES AND THEN CHECK THE TIMESLOTS IN THE US AND UK INSTEAD OF TROLLING THIS FORUM WITH YOUR BBC FRIENDS BETTER STILL STAY ON TOPIC.

REMEMBER PEOPLE THIS IS WHAT YOUR TV LICENCE PAYS FOR SO ITS NO WONDER THE BBC DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE WHAT PEOPLE GET PAID FOR