BBC licence fee poll.

[Funk]

Pesty said:

I think it's great I'm forced to pay a tax so the BBC can spunk it on this talent. I mean now all the other people know how much he's paid he'll be snapped up in no time.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3591344/BB...

If he's worth it people will subscribe and his wages will be justified. I wonder how many managers and God know what else are paid similar.

Stand on your own two feet. Let the market adjust .

£450k is an unusual threshold to pick instead of £150k rather than say £250k.. I'd guess they've got lots on just under that £450k amount...

[Pesty]

Exactly


My guess protecting an aweful lot of 'controllers'

Edited by Pesty on Sunday 15th May 21:53

[Welshbeef]

Pesty said:

Exactly


My guess protecting an aweful lot of 'controllers'

Edited by Pesty on Sunday 15th May 21:53

As a strong supporter of the BBC I too do not understand why it's £450k such an odd value - £250/500k fine but £450k doesn't appear to have a sensible reasoning behind it.

[0000]

It must be entirely based upon the percentile of staff currently above that figure, rounded slightly. It does scream that if they were to lower it the list would rapidly get longer.

[Murph7355]

Shooting themselves in the foot... They'd have been better off choosing one of the tax thresholds, or maybe

- some multiple of the average earnings level
- those paid more than the pm (who cares)
- or perhaps those earning more than 20x more than the lowest paid (I think that's one marker beloved of the socialist fraternity)

[loafer123]

Many public and private organisations publish the number of people paid certain bands of salary, as well as the names of their top earners.

Perhaps that would be a good option for the BBC?

[EddieSteadyGo]

Pesty said:

I think it's great I'm forced to pay a tax so the BBC can spunk it on this talent. I mean now all the other people know how much he's paid he'll be snapped up in no time.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3591344/BB...

If he's worth it people will subscribe and his wages will be justified. I wonder how many managers and God know what else are paid similar.

Stand on your own two feet. Let the market adjust .

I must admit, Eddie Mair is good, but he isn't THAT good IMO.

[BlackLabel]

The £450k threshold is now being reduced to £150k.

The BBC will be forced to disclose the names of more than 100 stars paid more than £150,000 a year, after ministers revived plans to make the broadcaster to be more transparent about how it spends the licence fee. High-profile presenters such as Laura Kuenssberg, Sophie Raworth and Nick Robinson face having their pay packets made public after ministers ripped up an earlier agreement to limit the publication of stars’ salaries to those paid more than £450,000

[BlackLabel]

Nice of them to think of the licence fee payer.

BBC TV chief: not in licence fee payers' interest to reveal stars' pay

[chris watton]

Isn't an ex Labour minister (Purnell?) now head of BBC radio, or something like that?

How many Labour/ex Labour people now have paid employment care of the licence fee?

ETA - I wonder, if the BBC was stuffed to the rafters with Tories/ex Tories, would those on the left be so quick to defend the fee?

[Oilchange]

Privatise it with a huge share sell off.

[ATG]

chris watton said:

Isn't an ex Labour minister (Purnell?) now head of BBC radio, or something like that?

How many Labour/ex Labour people now have paid employment care of the licence fee?

ETA - I wonder, if the BBC was stuffed to the rafters with Tories/ex Tories, would those on the left be so quick to defend the fee?

Depends how dim witted they are. If the slight left bias was replaced by a slight right bias I doubt anyone with three brain cells or more would give a tuppenny fk.

[turbobloke]

ATG said:

chris watton said:

Isn't an ex Labour minister (Purnell?) now head of BBC radio, or something like that?

How many Labour/ex Labour people now have paid employment care of the licence fee?

ETA - I wonder, if the BBC was stuffed to the rafters with Tories/ex Tories, would those on the left be so quick to defend the fee?

Depends how dim witted they are. If the slight left bias was replaced by a slight right bias I doubt anyone with three brain cells or more would give a tuppenny fk.

Not so - bias is where the problem is, not its direction. There's a requirement for impartiality which is being flouted and any deviation left or right is unacceptable. Anyone with two brain cells etc.

The idea that the centre-right needs propping up via propaganda from the state broadcaster is clearly false, as recent elections demonstrate. At the moment only leftism needs the significant boost of having the BBC on-side and even that isn't enough any more. People have been realising for some time now that left-liberalism (better described as left-authoritarianism) has been failing for decades.

'The world is changing in ways the British left cannot comprehend' and that lack of understanding includes the hapless Beeb.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/st...

[Murph7355]

turbobloke said:

Not so - bias is where the problem is, not its direction. There's a requirement for impartiality which is being flouted and any deviation left or right is unacceptable. Anyone with two brain cells etc.
...

I agree.

Though ref the license fee, recently I've had a much bigger issue with the best broadcasting company in the world rehashing sitcoms that were already tired 35 years ago! Anyone standing the BBC up as a paragon of great TV needs their head felt.

It's very much time to jettison the license fee, make the BBC stand on its own two feet and get some simple provisions in place for public service use (which I'm sure already exist).

[silverthorn2151]

Halb said:

Tried to use sky go today, had to sit through three griggin adverts, eventually I got fed up and stopped it, decided it wasn't worth the mither. Adverts are pretty much the reason why I don't use the crappy C4 version and ITV, but I didn't expect ads on the sky one, since sky is paid for on top of basic telly.

There are only adverts if you 'watch'. I download from skygo and watch ad free. Brilliant.Channel 4 and ITV, I never use because of the ads.

[chris watton]

turbobloke said:

ATG said:

chris watton said:

Isn't an ex Labour minister (Purnell?) now head of BBC radio, or something like that?

How many Labour/ex Labour people now have paid employment care of the licence fee?

ETA - I wonder, if the BBC was stuffed to the rafters with Tories/ex Tories, would those on the left be so quick to defend the fee?

Depends how dim witted they are. If the slight left bias was replaced by a slight right bias I doubt anyone with three brain cells or more would give a tuppenny fk.

Not so - bias is where the problem is, not its direction. There's a requirement for impartiality which is being flouted and any deviation left or right is unacceptable. Anyone with two brain cells etc.

The idea that the centre-right needs propping up via propaganda from the state broadcaster is clearly false, as recent elections demonstrate. At the moment only leftism needs the significant boost of having the BBC on-side and even that isn't enough any more. People have been realising for some time now that left-liberalism (better described as left-authoritarianism) has been failing for decades.

'The world is changing in ways the British left cannot comprehend' and that lack of understanding includes the hapless Beeb.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/st...

I wouldn't mind at all if there was no bias. I don't want it skewed one way or the other!

Watched a bit of Andrew Marr, and was surprised (not) at how soft the interview was with Owen Smith, a very easy ride.

I then watched that odious Emily Thornberry get well and truly skewered of SKY News by Dermot Murnaghan when asked to name the French foreign minister and South Korean minister. She couldn't of course, being Shadow Foreign Secretary, and started going mad at Murnaghan, calling him sexist to deflect her lack of knowledge!

Was great to watch..

ETA - just realised Guido is running with this:

http://order-order.com/2016/09/11/thornberry-cant-...

[Hosenbugler]

chris watton said:

I wouldn't mind at all if there was no bias. I don't want it skewed one way or the other!
I then watched that odious Emily Thornberry get well and truly skewered of SKY News by Dermot Murnaghan when asked to name the French foreign minister and South Korean minister. She couldn't of course, being Shadow Foreign Secretary, and started going mad at Murnaghan, calling him sexist to deflect her lack of knowledge!

Was great to watch..

ETA - just realised Guido is running with this:

http://order-order.com/2016/09/11/thornberry-cant-...

Good Lord, the Vacuous scrote Thornberry really got her feathers ruffled there. Blame others because of her imncompetence/lack of knowledge. Vile, pompous, arrogant piece of work.

[Jockman]

Ok, News at 10 headlines in THIS order......

Boundary Changes
Great British Bake Off
Syria
US Presidential Elections
Paralympics

WTF !!

[anonymous-user]

Good value for money. I watch/listen to BBC more than 50% of the time. Which is a lot considering the other 999 advert ridden crap channels that exist !

[AC43]

Jimboka said:

Good value for money. I watch/listen to BBC more than 50% of the time. Which is a lot considering the other 999 advert ridden crap channels that exist !

I'd pretty much agree with that.

IMHO the vast majority of TV output is bilge.

The BBC stuff is much less bilgey than most of it.

On the odd occassion that I actually watch somehing it's more that likely something on the BBC.

Occasionally stray to ITV or C4 but that's about it.

If there wasn't the BBC I think I'd just give up on broadcast content.