BBC licence fee poll.

Poll: BBC licence fee poll.

Total Members Polled: 1030

I don't pay - I don't watch live TV: 11%
I don't pay - I refuse to fund the BBC: 6%
I pay reluctantly: 43%
I pay willingly: 14%
I pay happily, it's a bargain: 21%
I don't need to pay: 4%
Author
Discussion

g4ry13

16,887 posts

254 months

Wednesday 19th July 2017
quotequote all
So how much would Clarkson have been getting in Top Gear days? Probably close to Lineker money.

It's actually crazy that Alan Shearer who sits next to Lineker gets paid so much less for the job.

paul99

800 posts

242 months

Thursday 20th July 2017
quotequote all
Nick Grimshaw is on ~400k, somebody justify that one!

Police State

4,063 posts

219 months

Thursday 20th July 2017
quotequote all
AJL308 said:
V8 Fettler said:
Licence fee needs to be scrapped. Let the free market prevail.
Just watched some beardy BBC moron spokesperson on Newsnight trying to justify how their pay negotiations with 'talent' work. Almost every other word was "market rate", "commercial sector" or words to that effect. Sorry but, due to the unique way in which the BBC is funded, they can't fall back on those phrases.

The BBC is either state run or it is commercial. It can't be both at the same time.
Maybe it's time to find some other 'talent'... Slash the fees for these agent-promoted 'stars' and if they don't like it, they can go to the other networks and try their luck. advertise their jobs to open casting at more proportionate rates and we may perhaps see some other 'talent' come through at more palatable rates.

Joedarkness

105 posts

133 months

Thursday 20th July 2017
quotequote all
g4ry13 said:
So how much would Clarkson have been getting in Top Gear days? Probably close to Lineker money.

It's actually crazy that Alan Shearer who sits next to Lineker gets paid so much less for the job.
Clarkson made money for the BBC as Top gear was sold worldwide I can't see anyone wanting to pay money to watch lineker even in the UK

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 20th July 2017
quotequote all
AJL308 said:
The BBC is either state run or it is commercial. It can't be both at the same time.
Does that view mean BBC Worldwide should be scrapped?


Challo

10,042 posts

154 months

Thursday 20th July 2017
quotequote all
Police State said:
AJL308 said:
V8 Fettler said:
Licence fee needs to be scrapped. Let the free market prevail.
Just watched some beardy BBC moron spokesperson on Newsnight trying to justify how their pay negotiations with 'talent' work. Almost every other word was "market rate", "commercial sector" or words to that effect. Sorry but, due to the unique way in which the BBC is funded, they can't fall back on those phrases.

The BBC is either state run or it is commercial. It can't be both at the same time.
Maybe it's time to find some other 'talent'... Slash the fees for these agent-promoted 'stars' and if they don't like it, they can go to the other networks and try their luck. advertise their jobs to open casting at more proportionate rates and we may perhaps see some other 'talent' come through at more palatable rates.
But then you will have people moaning that the presenters are rubbish, or that program is boring now. BBC have a balancing act to pay market rates, but get value for money.

Also at lot of this is subjective....as if you hate the presenter/program you will struggle to see the value with that person.

Otispunkmeyer

12,557 posts

154 months

Thursday 20th July 2017
quotequote all
paul99 said:
Nick Grimshaw is on ~400k, somebody justify that one!
Christ. He's not worth £400 of anybody's money, let alone £400k!!!


Still. In the grand scheme of things, this is but a handful of people (relatively speaking) on very high pay. Not sure it would make all that much difference if they were chopped down to size.

Just let em get on with it. so Long as I can chose not to watch or listen to any of them. Then I'm happy .

Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Thursday 20th July 08:04

Halb

53,012 posts

182 months

Thursday 20th July 2017
quotequote all
Nothingtoseehere said:
You've summed up the BBC perfectly now.
Plenty of repeats and low cost ste even on today.
I've summed up most channels, with the beeb there's less of the fomer and the latter.

Halb

53,012 posts

182 months

Thursday 20th July 2017
quotequote all
BlackLabel said:
I'm surprised that Andrew Neil and Laura Kuenssberg don't get paid more - they are never off the tv.
Brillo is definitely worth whatever he is paid...I haven't looked. biggrin

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Thursday 20th July 2017
quotequote all
Halb said:
BlackLabel said:
I'm surprised that Andrew Neil and Laura Kuenssberg don't get paid more - they are never off the tv.
Brillo is definitely worth whatever he is paid...I haven't looked. biggrin
He's in the £200,000 – £249,999 bracket with Victoria Derbyshire and Laura Kuenssberg.

Far better vfm than many who are paid much more.

Halb

53,012 posts

182 months

Thursday 20th July 2017
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
He's in the £200,000 – £249,999 bracket with Victoria Derbyshire and Laura Kuenssberg.

Far better vfm than many who are paid much more.
I've had a look now, I'm staggered by some of the numbers, Gary LInekar, Chris Evans, Vineman.
As I sit on my ancient settee at home I look at the numbers and think, that can't be right. Brillo seems right, as he is the premier person in his job, and headlines...three distinct shows?. I am confused by some of the regional sorts who are near the top though.

austinsmirk

5,597 posts

122 months

Thursday 20th July 2017
quotequote all
I don't understand how Claudia Winklethingy even commands £500K as a salary.

Forget about BME and gender equality bandwagons- £500k for rocking up on strictly for a few weeks of the year ?


Anyway, I like paying the fee, to have channels audio/TV devoid of ads.

C70R

17,596 posts

103 months

Thursday 20th July 2017
quotequote all
Randy Winkman said:
kev1974 said:
Not sure why people that just read the news out a couple of days a week are getting half-million plus. Sure they could get plenty of people just as good at reading it out for £30k. And quite surprised that Claudia Winkleman is their highest paid woman, she's useless. Could also be replaced by, well almost anyone.
How much do such people get on other channels?
This is totally overlooked by the wallies who would rather get their knickers in a twist over a Daily Mail headline. The BBC must be paying market rate to attract talent - cutting the wage bill would leave us with a dross talent-pool and thus inferior programming.

I don't like Winkleman (and don't watch primetime TV), but you'd have to be a special kind of slow to wonder why she's the top-paid female talent when she's at the helm of the BBC's flagship TV property.
http://metro.co.uk/2016/12/18/strictly-come-dancin...

loafer123

15,404 posts

214 months

Thursday 20th July 2017
quotequote all

Bear in mind the published numbers are just direct BBC salaries.

Anything earned from independent production companies producing programmes on behalf of the BBC, or anything paid by BBC Worldwide, for example, is on top and not disclosed.

Digga

40,206 posts

282 months

Thursday 20th July 2017
quotequote all
La Liga said:
AJL308 said:
The BBC is either state run or it is commercial. It can't be both at the same time.
Does that view mean BBC Worldwide should be scrapped?
How and when was it declared sacred?

As others say, back in the days when aunty had a job to do WRT to the national importance of propaganda and public service broadcasting, there was an actual point. Those days are gone, never to return.

mickmcpaddy

1,445 posts

104 months

Thursday 20th July 2017
quotequote all
jjlynn27 said:
mickmcpaddy said:
I take it that everyone that takes this view has every type of cheap licence going they can get their hands on, eg fishing licence - £30 a year or 8p a day, outstanding value compared to the TV licence.
Almost as stupid as your 'contributions' to 'acid' thread. Almost.
Thought it might be, care to explain then why its perfectly acceptable to tell someone to spend money on a TV licence they don't need because its only a few pence a day but it would be stupid to tell someone to buy a fishing licence they don't need that's only a tenth of the price.

Try to be a bit more articulate this time and contribute something a bit more than wker or dhead etc.

Gandahar

9,600 posts

127 months

Thursday 20th July 2017
quotequote all
There is something you have all missed.

It's the fact that if you only have a radio you do not have to pay the TV Licence

Given that I would have assumed BBC TV presenters get a lot more than radio scratchchin It's ironic the top earners tend to be on the non revenue source.

Thoughts?

I don't really like Martin Chapman on 5 live and tv but he seems to do a lot more than Gary Lineker hours wise.... for 1/5 the wage . Alan Shearer on £500 000 ? Stupid




C70R

17,596 posts

103 months

Thursday 20th July 2017
quotequote all
I'm actually struggling to understand how someone can go an entire year without watching a BBC TV channel, listening to a BBC radio station or using iPlayer.

I'm not a particularly heavy TV viewer (probably 6-7hrs a week), but even I can see the value in the little exposure I get. I appreciate TV/radio being made without commercial purposes in mind, and being delivered without 20min of adverts per hour.
I get my news from other sources, so I don't really see any great political bias.
As such, I'm happy to spend a tenner a month (what else is that going to buy me?) on a licence.

I'm preparing myself for a barrage of "I don't even own a TV, mate" and "nobody watches TV any more, mate" responses from the usual contrarian PH massive.

jjlynn27

7,935 posts

108 months

Thursday 20th July 2017
quotequote all
mickmcpaddy said:
jjlynn27 said:
mickmcpaddy said:
I take it that everyone that takes this view has every type of cheap licence going they can get their hands on, eg fishing licence - £30 a year or 8p a day, outstanding value compared to the TV licence.
Almost as stupid as your 'contributions' to 'acid' thread. Almost.
Thought it might be, care to explain then why its perfectly acceptable to tell someone to spend money on a TV licence they don't need because its only a few pence a day but it would be stupid to tell someone to buy a fishing licence they don't need that's only a tenth of the price.

Try to be a bit more articulate this time and contribute something a bit more than wker or dhead etc.
I try to tailor my post to the target audience. Is that more articulate for you?

You don't have to have the license. A lot of people don't.

tvlicensing said:
You don’t need a TV Licence if you:

  • never watch or record programmes on any channel as they’re being shown on TV or live on an online TV service, and
  • never download or watch BBC programmes on iPlayer – live, catch up or on demand.
That's the law as it stands. So no, you don't need to spend the money on 'the license that you don't need'.


Cotty

39,389 posts

283 months

Thursday 20th July 2017
quotequote all
C70R said:
I'm actually struggling to understand how someone can go an entire year without watching a BBC TV channel, listening to a BBC radio station or using iPlayer.
The BBC does not fit the way I watch TV. I mainly watch it on the train on my commute so copy DVD's to my ipod or download episodes and films from Amazon. The way I see it I can use the money that would pay for the licence to buy DVD's, some of which are BBC programs but I can watch them when I like and as often as I like. Things like Planet Earth and Death in Paradise.

My TV at home has a DVD player and an Xbo360 connected to it, it cannot receive live TV.