I belive however like the car, you are legally responsible for your connection and who uses it.
You can't identify them then its you who gets the finr
BBC license fee proposals...
- Thread starter /\ndy
- Start date
I belive however like the car, you are legally responsible for your connection and who uses it.
You can't identify them then its you who gets the finr
What problems? I watched sky 1 last week I never died..... Other people did but I don't think that was related to sky TV.... Its just wrong to basically tax average Joe and throw huge sums of money at BBC staff... Its not really even optional like sky or virgin are it's a case of the elite looking after their mates
I bet the free money BBC gets bumps up prices for other services because the BBC can out bid or bid up prices for sports, star salerys and brought in programs
FYI, the BBC has 28000 members of staff, ITV has 4800 for pretty much the same service.
All aboard the BBC gravy train!
FYI, the BBC has 28000 members of staff, ITV has 4800 for pretty much the same service.
All aboard the BBC gravy train!
Same service if you pretend that the BBC is just a handful of TV channels with 95% bought in content maybe.
FYI, the BBC has 28000 members of staff, ITV has 4800 for pretty much the same service.
All aboard the BBC gravy train!
Slight difference in how the two operate, and the scope of their operations.
The BBC run dozens of radio stations*, 2 full time TV channels, a full time News channel, a couple of childrens channels, and it's own news gathering operation.
It also does far more "in house" content/production.
On the other hand you've got ITV, which runs a several TV stations (one at least is mainly repeats), most of its content is bought in, has no radio stations and its news gathering is outsourced.
Or to put it another way, one includes a lot of staff who actually produce content, the other is largely the management and advertising sales
What's more interesting is comparing like for like - where it turns out that per minute the BBC typically works out cheaper than ITV for content, and that the BBC tends to send less staff to cover similar events (or rather less per hour of coverage of the events).
*Which actually have real people running them pretty much all the time, and often include specific programming as opposed to just a DJ or presenter (who in the case of some commercial operations might now be running 4 or 5 "local" broadcasts simultaneously with the help of pre-recorded inserts for each area)
Try again, you're still missing just a tad.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 16 May 2005
- Posts
- 31,297
- Location
- Manchester
Nope, that isn't true.
Lets put it this way.
News gathering is very resource intensive if you wish to do it properly - which is why ITV use ITN (it effectively means they don't have to employ many/any news gathering staff themselves, whilst ITN also provide the news gathering for other commercial operations).
So ITV's staffing is down something like 3000 just by outsourcing news, something the BBC can't do as it's a key part of it's charter.
Running a radio station that does more than just 15 minutes of "local" news per day and selecting a play list takes a lot of staff.
Radio 4 for example has no equivalent in the commercial sector in the UK because it requires a lot of staff and money to do the sorts of programming it airs.
In effect it's a full time TV station like BBC1, with just the visual side of things missing.
And you're completely ignoring one of the biggest differences, namely the amount of content produced in house.
The BBC directly employs a large number of people to create programming in house, and making even a short TV programme takes a lot of people.
The ITV figures won't include many staff who actually create the content, as they buy most of it in.
At the moment your staffing figures are like comparing a Primary school with a University in terms of what is done and the staff needed.
So it's not really surprising that the BBC employs something like 5 times as many staff as ITV, it has considerably more new output per day than them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2014
- Posts
- 3,929
- Location
- Oxon
It's not complete rubbish. The vast majority of households have no problems with TV Licensing.
A bit of a non sequitur, but I think it's either the BBC of BBC:WW.
No idea what that's got to do with staffing levels.
It was rubbish as you made it sound like it’s our fault for making things complicated by being difficult for no reason which is not true. The TV licence people are the ones who are wrong.
If you look at people who don’t have a licence a large amount of people have problems even though they are correctly unlicensed and have done nothing wrong. I didn't like the way you made it sound like us unlicensed people who are in the wrong and making it difficult which is incorrect.
Last edited:
Why do I get the feeling that the "more to it" you didn't want to expand on before involves you doing something that gives them reason to think you're evading paying rather than legitimately not needing it?
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2014
- Posts
- 3,929
- Location
- Oxon
That's because more often than not, that is the case. It may not be in yours, but cases like that are isolated ones.
Just look at the number of posts in this thread suggesting the correct course of action is to ignore the letters completely, rather than spending literally a minute on the website informing them that you don't need a license.
I don't believe my case is isolated. Someone else in this thread said they informed them via the website and it didn't work. In the other threads many people said the same thing as me. I hear about cases like mine all the time.
Well I informed them in 2010 via the website and got a confirmation mail and I was nice to the inspectors that came around and let them in the house. That was ok for years not even a single letter. Then in recent years they asked me again if I had a TV. Again I filled out the info on the website got a confirmation mail. But this time they won’t believe I don’t have a single TV in my house despite the inspectors being allowed to look in the house. Mid way though this year they increased the harassment to weekly which was the point I got fed up and stopped letting them in my house. But until that point I was always friendly and let them in.Why do I get the feeling that the "more to it" you didn't want to expand on before involves you doing something that gives them reason to think you're evading paying rather than legitimately not needing it?
The BBC has been instumental in creating British society over the years and some of the content was outstanding for many years. We now live in a different age and other broadcasters have had to use the advertising model to be viable - the BBC should not be using the government to creat laws that allow it to avoid competition. The BBC have had a good run at it - many people have been to jail for not paying the fee (yes it was a criminal offence!!!!) and they are still using the old chums in high places to keep the cash cow alive.
We don't watch BBC TV and don't pay the fee - I wonder if they will have a new offensive trying to get people to pay - many people on benefits around here simply won't and connot afford to pay it especially with that bedroom tax to pay....
We don't watch BBC TV and don't pay the fee - I wonder if they will have a new offensive trying to get people to pay - many people on benefits around here simply won't and connot afford to pay it especially with that bedroom tax to pay....
No they haven't, and no it wasn't.
It was a civil offense, and people were only imprisoned for not paying the court ordered fine they got.
But no one has ever been sent down for not paying the BBC.
You were right about one thing though, the BBC are definitely responsible for brainwashing British society.