He probably read the analagy somewhere else and thought it sounded smart
No that's one of my own quotes
Television License
- Thread starter Muffin`
- Start date
No that's one of my own quotes
1: Like the commercial channels have been doing so well at? (ITV's cut back it's PSB to the absolute bone, C4 is having funding problems, C5 has never really been that good, and Sky tends to be repeats funded by ads and subs)
2: The money "paid to" Ross is paid for production of various programmes he presents to his production company - and as such isn't such a huge amount (iirc it actually pays for his salery, the production staff, equipment etc), and looked in that respect isn't actually very expensive per hour of TV (the absolute cheapest new clip show cost about 30k an hour from what i've heard).
3: What slush funds?
4: You mean the Persian TV channel that was created at the behest of the Government, and is being funded directly by the government at a huge cost of about £15 million a year?
If the BBC had to compete with the commercial advertisers for a share of the ad funding (which is already going down, and getting spread very thinly in places), the quality of UK TV would drop through the floor and not just on the BBC.
Can the quality of TV get much worse than it is already?
Ahhh, my housemate found a letter the other day and came up the stairs stating that "We are being investigated for watching TV without a licence!" Cue one of my other housemates almost in hysterics and another a bit stunned. Then even more stunned as I took the letter and ripped it up...
Even after telling them it was a scare tactic, the fact we already have a TV licence for the communal area and the one other room with a connected tv they were still almost in hysterics. I wonder if you could get some kind of recompence for causing that kind of mental anguish. If someone came into your house demanding £1000 for no reason i'm sure the police would be interested, so why not sue for damages.
Even after telling them it was a scare tactic, the fact we already have a TV licence for the communal area and the one other room with a connected tv they were still almost in hysterics. I wonder if you could get some kind of recompence for causing that kind of mental anguish. If someone came into your house demanding £1000 for no reason i'm sure the police would be interested, so why not sue for damages.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 3,489
- Location
- At Home
Considering it is miles better than any country in the world I fail to see the problem. Try staying in somewhere like Japan, the US, Australia for any length of time or many other so called modern nations to see just how bad TV can really be.
What I also find in threads like this is the people who complain most about the Licence fee are also the same people who complain about the likes of US TV and the bias applied on channels in places like the middle east. So which one wins exactly ?
I really can't complain about the fee to be honest. My son spends a few hours a week watching CBeeBees and I find he has learnt just as much from that as he has from his Nursery (and that would cost £600 if I had to pay) - and that few hours a week of peace is well worth the £12 a month
And it stops the missus from nagging me for a couple of hours every night - so it's well worth it.
Last edited:
I didn't mention the commercial channels in the first place; they're a mere irrelevance. There's no point comparing them to the BBC; they're not even in the same league.
But while we're on that subject, I think it's important to remember that we're still paying for them! Channel 4 alone is sucking down £14 million in taxpayer's money over six years. What do we get for that? I don't know. All I know is that it won't be worth £14 million.
So let's stop bankrolling the commercial channels with our own money, and tell the Beeb to stuff its license fee. If they don't like it, that's tough. They can all learn to adapt or die trying.
Ross' current deal is for £18 million per year, of which one third (£6 million) comprises his personal salary. That's a tasty amount in anyone's language.
Even Carol Vorderman was getting £1 million a year. For what? Putting on some makeup and doing a few sums. Easy money!
Perks, bonuses, slush funds, call them what you like. I mean the stupidly large amounts of taxpayer's money poured over the BBC's managers and directors every year in so-called "hospitality expenses", etc.
Why is the BBC paying a total of £14.3 million to a mere 50 managers? How is that money being justified?
Yep, that one. Get rid of it. Complete waste of taxpayer's money. The public didn't ask for it, so why are we paying for it? If the Iranians want another TV channel, they can do it themselves.
Why should I pay for another country's TV channels? Would you pay for America's PBS, or Australia's ABC?
Firstly, I am not arguing that the BBC should compete with the commercial advertisers. I believe the BBC should remain commercial-free.
Secondly, the BBC is already in bed with the commercial advertisers; just look at the Dave channel some time. Every program is broken up by a stream of idiotic commercials. Why? Because it's a joint venture between BBC Worldwide and Virgin (both purely commercial networks).
So let's not pretend that this is simply about commercial revenue, because the Beeb's already getting a slice of that action.
Considering it is miles better than any country in the world I fail to see the problem. Try staying in somewhere like Japan, the US, Australia for any length of time or many other so called modern nations to see just how bad TV can really be.
What I also find in threads like this is the people who complain most about the Licence fee are also the same people who complain about the likes of US TV and the bias applied on channels in places like the middle east. So which one wins exactly ?
I really can't complain about the fee to be honest. My son spends a few hours a week watching CBeeBees and I find he has learnt just as much from that as he has from his Nursery (and that would cost £600 if I had to pay) - and that few hours a week of peace is well worth the £12 a month
Channel 4 receives millions of pounds in public money, but it's still excruciatingly bad. The BBC receives more than £2 billion per year from its license fee, but the quality of its broadcasting has gone down and its digital channels are crammed with an endless stream of repeats.
More public money is not the answer. Better financial management is the answer.
C4 is publicly owned, just like the BBC, except it has to live on money from adverts. Which explains why it is the second best TV company out there, a public mandate, but not quite as much money to make the really big shows.
So you really think the people in charge of a multi billion pound organisation should be paid way below the market rate. Yes you could cap their wages at £100k but they would just disappear off to other companies that are willing to pay them the market rate. Result for BBC? Having to employ vastly inexperienced or desparate people instead of people at the top of their game, probably causing a huge management problem within the organisation.
I'm sure the government has a valid reason... But that has nothing to do with the BBC and licence money, I assume they are just the producers, and if they didn't do it another company would take the £14 million and do it.
Sorry pal but you're talking about court bailiffs NOT the nice license inspector.
"Second best TV company out there"? Since when? According to whom?
If it's commercially funded, why does the taxpayer have to bankroll it?
No, I don't. I think too many of them are already being paid above the market rate for what they actually do.
There are currently 40 TV and radio stars who earn more than £1 million, and most of them work for the BBC! Jonathan Ross is already the UK's most highly paid presenter, earning far more than any commercial TV personality. How can anyone claim he's earning below market rate?
The Director-General of the BBC current receives a package worth £816,000 per year - and that's before his annual bonus.
The rest of the BBC's executives earn between £220,000-£536,000 - that's far more than they would receive at a commercial network, where the average is £150,000-£250,000.
Nonsense. The BBC's international journalists have always been recognised as among the best in the world, but they're not paid millions; in fact, they're probably the guys who are being paid below market rate. And yet their quality is superb and their professionalism renowned.
The £14 million shouldn't be made available to any private network in the first place. That's my point.
We don't - it's owned by the government, which is very different to being paid for by it on an ongoing basis.
C4 has to pay for itself through advertising which is why it's running into trouble, as unlike ITV and the other purely commercial TV companies it can't shirk it's PSB requirements as the people ultimately in charge of it, are also the ones who have set the requirements.
Where does it say most of them are employed by the BBC?
Where does it state that the BBC is paying over the odds? (it doesn't)
Also where does it state that Ross is the highest paid person? (Wasn't one of the C5 new presenters getting a multi million pound deal a couple of year back).
Remember Ross is paid not directly by the BBC, but by the production company he owns, which is paid by the BBC to produce TV shows - his company might be getting millions, but that doesn't mean Ross takes home the lions share, or that his company is being paid over the odds for the amount, and type of content they provide under contract.
Also, any money he gets from the contract would be paid both for his work presenting the shows, and as the owner/main shareholder/director etc of the company.
Any figures/links to back that up?
[/quote]
It's a diplomatic tool - much of the Middle East has very restrictive broadcasting, and the Foreign Office have decided it's worth broadcasting news about that region, and the west to the region in the native language to try and broaden the minds of those who may otherwise just get a steady stream of state propaganda telling them the West is evil and blaming all their ills on the West.
In the long term the reasoning will most likely be that it'll help with international relations/promote people questioning why everything that is wrong with their lives is the fault of the West/Israel etc. I suspect they hope it'll also help stop some people from becoming suicide bombers/fighters in Iraq.
In those terms £14 million is peanuts compared to the cost of a fighting, or even potentially dealing with a single suicide bomber.
Don't get me wrong; I'm a huge fan of the Beeb, and one of my greatest dreams is to work for it some day. There is no broadcasting company on this planet which comes close to anything the Beeb does.
That's why I get so upset when I see my tax money being wasted. It's like being kicked in the guts by your best friend.
That's why I get so upset when I see my tax money being wasted. It's like being kicked in the guts by your best friend.