[News] Say's it all

[LlcoolJ]

my mum says its £70 a month and well worth it but bbc is £154.50 so rubbish for twice as much

Going for the double whooshing there I see.

 

[The Clamp]

Let the old buggers pay for it. Most of them are loaded.

 

[darkwolf666]

It is pay to view. Subscription slightly more than Netflix but offers more.

But it isn't though is it! You have to have the license regardless of what channel you watch. Most of the good content like sport has migrated...

 

[Thunder Bolt]

They're trying to strike a balance between educating and informing. I hope you're exagerating to make a point re "far from independent news as it can be" - I'd say Fox News falls into that category, not the BBC.

Oh, and FWIW C4 also receive a percentage of the license fee.

It's not quite up to the standard of Fox News but I have caught it out in lies, and seen blatant propaganda in Newsnight & Question Time with plants (not the potted kind) as members of the public.
I used to trust the BBC, but don't any longer.
Strangely, the BBC World Service is more balanced.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

So you get Sky for £5.83 / month. ? Does it give you as much as the BBC does ?

You're posting to a parody account.

 

[GOM]

But it isn't though is it! You have to have the license regardless of what channel you watch. Most of the good content like sport has migrated...

Yes you do, yes it has. Still extremely good value for c £12.50 / month

 

[darkwolf666]

Yes you do, yes it has. Still extremely good value for c £12.50 / month

Not if you used to get it for nowt!

 

[darkwolf666]

Go and spend some years living abroad and you will soon appreciate that the BBC is one of the few things that is still great about Britain.
I'd happily pay the licence fee just for the radio services let alone the TV channels, iPlayer and websites.

To be honest, I don’t think many people have a problem with paying the license fee, the problem lies with telling people on limited incomes that suddenly they have to stump up an extra £150+ a year. Yes it’s good value compared to Netflix, Now TV, Sky, etc, etc, but I would hazard a guess the majority of over 75s don’t subscribe to other TV services.

I have calculated it would cost me and all the license owners an additional £20 a year to maintain the free license for over 75s. I know which option I would go for...

 

[Justice]

Go and spend some years living abroad and you will soon appreciate that the BBC is one of the few things that is still great about Britain.
I'd happily pay the licence fee just for the radio services let alone the TV channels, iPlayer and websites.

I have and didn’t miss it one bit. Don’t really use the BBC now so don’t see why I need to fork out for a license.

 

[GOM]

Not if you used to get it for nowt!

If anyone is unable to pay then fine gift it, otherwise if they can afford to pay then pay.

 

[GOM]

I have and didn’t miss it one bit. Don’t really use the BBC now so don’t see why I need to fork out for a license.

Either you do use it or you don't. As they say can't be a bit pregnant, and as everyone has pointed out it's not for using BBC, it's for using TV receiving equipment.

 

[Two Professors]

This is more about the BBC bosses lying through their teeth than anything else.The only reason they were allowed to raise their extortion was them agreeing to carry on funding the over 75's payment,but now they have reneged.Bunch of over-paid has-beens showing mainly repeats.Jug-ears Spanneker's wages would pay for 10,000 free licences.Get rid of the dross.

 

[Biscuit]

It's not quite up to the standard of Fox News but I have caught it out in lies, and seen blatant propaganda in Newsnight & Question Time with plants (not the potted kind) as members of the public.
I used to trust the BBC, but don't any longer.
Strangely, the BBC World Service is more balanced.

Sometimes the NHS gets things wrong, should we switch to insurance based healthcare?

 

[Dick Head]

Great fun isn't it (apostrophe in the right place)
I just think it's wrong. Ever heard of the Blitz, imagine being a child living through that. I can still remember rationing etc which went on for quite a time after the war. Going to Holland in August to visit my partners grandfathers grave. Personal invitation to all the family's of the soldiers who gave their lives on the 75th anniversary so they were liberated
My partners grandfather gave his live the day before my partners mother was born
So take the piss all you want and be happy you were lucky enough not to live then.
Anyway who watches BBC
apart from that generation

See me!

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Sometimes the NHS gets things wrong, should we switch to insurance based healthcare?

Strange analogy?

 

[darkwolf666]

75 year olds were not involved in the war. You’d have to be 79 & male just to have done National Service.

What's that got to do with it, it was just an example of the sort of people who will be hit by this move!

 

[Biscuit]

Strange analogy?

How so? Both publically funded bodies open to the same financial scrutiny.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

What's that got to do with it, it was just an example of the sort of people who will be hit by this move!

No, it's not. I'm very nearly in that age group and look nothing like two doddery old people shuffling along. As I pointed out previously, many old people are exempt anyway because they're on pension credit, live in sheltered accommodation or care home. The blind also get free licenses.
The rest of us pay £2.98 a week. The price of a coffee.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

How so? Both publically funded bodies open to the same financial scrutiny.

Do doctors deliberately lie and present false facts. Do they invite prospective council or election candidates into the hospitals to ask leading questions in debates?

Yes, both are publicly funded but that's where any similarity ends.

 

[Biscuit]

Do doctors deliberately lie and present false facts. Do they invite prospective council or election candidates into the hospitals to ask leading questions in debates?

Yes, both are publicly funded but that's where any similarity ends.

So you're tarnishing the whole reputation of the BBC (which employs 21,000 people) because of the actions of one or two of its producers on one specific program. That doesn't seem fair to me.

The BBC has a balancing act in regard it's remit to inform and entertain. When a program can do both, great. But sometimes it can be a struggle to get that balance correct, especially on political programming. It can sway all too easily towards 'entertain' - and be criticized for lack of levity, or to the 'inform' side - boring, switch over to ITV. At the end of the day, the Beeb is made up of individual journalists who'll all have their own worldview but the vast majority do their best to report the news impartially. Have a listen to how ITV present the same information and you'll hear the difference in the phrases used. The BBC is criticized for bias by those on the left and the right, probably a sign it's striking the right balance, no?

The BBC receiving public funds means that it retains its independence from both commercial and political pressures - that makes it almost unique. I'd much rather that than news outlets owned by Murdoch, Lord Rothermere, the Barclay Brothers and Richard Desmond, but each to their own.