Television Licence

[boingy]

I’ve considered it because I don’t watch the BBC at all. Occasionally like once in 5 years I watch something on iplayer ( like now Peaky blinders again, probably the best series EVER to come from the BBC) other than that I get my viewing from K dramas on Netflix and Viki. The BBC is totally alien to me.

[kettering_baggie]

I thought you got the licence fee free along with double fuel allowance at your age Kets?

😏🤣🤣

At my age, I’ll take anything that I can get!

[Stevil81]

I looked it up as we don't have one as we have Netflix, Prime etc.

As long as you don't watch live BBC or iPlayer it isn't required as far as I can see.

On this basis we watch neither so will jot be getting one.

[baggieal]

Will continue to pay for mine but those who dodge it like tax and get away with it - good luck to them! Hardly blame these people when large corporations like Amazon cheat taxation!

Happy with my fire stick costing £100 per year to watch any film and any sporting match in the world! Why pay for Sky as it’s a rip off!

[On Balance]

I looked it up as we don't have one as we have Netflix, Prime etc.

As long as you don't watch live BBC or iPlayer it isn't required as far as I can see.

On this basis we watch neither so will jot be getting one.

We use the BBC so we purchase a licence.

We have Amazon Prime and Netflix also. In all honesty, as a family watch little tv and are quite selective on what we watch.

I will add that if you watch any live tv via Prime, you would require a licence. It is the same should you watch live tv via You Tube or watch any pay by view facility. If you watch sky news live for instance, via whatever means, you would require a tv licence to do so.

In my view the fee is good value for money when you consider what you get, tv, radio, internet etc.

Stats show there were 44,106 successful prosecutions in 2022, of people who did not have a tv licence.

[baggieal]

We use the BBC so we purchase a licence.

We have Amazon Prime and Netflix also. In all honesty, as a family watch little tv and are quite selective on what we watch.

I will add that if you watch any live tv via Prime, you would require a licence. It is the same should you watch live tv via You Tube or watch any pay by view facility. If you watch sky news live for instance, via whatever means, you would require a tv licence to do so.

In my view the fee is good value for money when you consider what you get, tv, radio, internet etc.

Stats show there were 44,106 successful prosecutions in 2022, of people who did not have a tv licence.

It could be better value for money if
k nobs like Linekar were not paid extortionate salaries. Half a million ditched their licenses last year which tells a story in itself. Whilst I have a license it’s difficult to be caught if you choose not to have one unless you sign in to iPlayer etc.

Isn’t Ken Barlow one of the highest paid actors in Coronation Street and he’s on the verge of bankruptcy for taxation avoidance? Amazed he can still stand up 😭

[Grand Wazoo]

I pay it through gritted teeth as I virtually never watch BBC but the law is that you have to have one to watch live TV not just BBC. So if you watch Sky programmes as they are aired then you are expected to have a licence. But Sky do not receive any money from the licence fee which I feel is unfair, even though I also hate Sky too. It would be fairer all round if Sky subscribers could ditch BBC from their Sky subscription and only have to pay for what they are prepared to watch with Sky. But it ain't gonna happen.

[Omegstrat6]

It could be better value for money if
k nobs like Linekar were not paid extortionate salaries. Half a million ditched their licenses last year which tells a story in itself. Whilst I have a license it’s difficult to be caught if you choose not to have one unless you sign in to iPlayer etc.

Isn’t Ken Barlow one of the highest paid actors in Coronation Street and he’s on the verge of bankruptcy for taxation avoidance? Amazed he can still stand up 😭

I've always thought that they (presenters especially) were massively overpaid too, especially as licence payers effectively pay their wages but the truth is that such wages are the going rate for that particular market and if the BBC wants to retain certain people and prevent them from being tempted by commercial broadcasters than that's what they have to pay. William Roach for example works for an ITV production.

Bottom line, it's the age old value/worth question e.g. in terms of salary why does society seem to generally accept that celebrities can be paid huge amounts of money but nurses a comparative pittance. The old "justify having your parachute in a falling aircraft" game might see Mr Linekar lose out to a nursing home carer but in the real world things are not like that.

[mickd1961]

I've always thought that they (presenters especially) were massively overpaid too, especially as licence payers effectively pay their wages but the truth is that such wages are the going rate for that particular market and if the BBC wants to retain certain people and prevent them from being tempted by commercial broadcasters than that's what they have to pay. William Roach for example works for an ITV production.

Bottom line, it's the age old value/worth question e.g. in terms of salary why does society seem to generally accept that celebrities can be paid huge amounts of money but nurses a comparative pittance. The old "justify having your parachute in a falling aircraft" game might see Mr Linekar lose out to a nursing home carer but in the real world things are not like that.

The wastage at the BBC is criminal.

On national news you have a weather forecaster because it’s clearly too hard for the news presenter to actually give us the weather update.

Then every regional news station such as Midlands Today does the same thing, Shefali Ozone gets well paid for standing in the background and speaking for 90 seconds each day! 😤

Fk sake, why can’t Mary Rhodes or Nick Owen give us the weather.

Then on BBC Radio for the Midlands you have yet another presenter.

It’s a total waste of money.

If commercial stations want to employ people at their expense to read weather that’s fine, they are commercial organisations and we don’t pay for them.

Why does Midlands Today need all of their various correspondents such as Michale Paduano for health and that David Gregory- Kumar for his speciality, sometimes these presenters go weeks without giving a piece of news?

[Omegstrat6]

The wastage at the BBC is criminal.

On national news you have a weather forecaster because it’s clearly too hard for the news presenter to actually give us the weather update.

Then every regional news station such as Midlands Today does the same thing, Shefali Ozone gets well paid for standing in the background and speaking for 90 seconds each day! 😤

Fk sake, why can’t Mary Rhodes or Nick Owen give us the weather.

Then on BBC Radio for the Midlands you have yet another presenter.

It’s a total waste of money.

If commercial stations want to employ people at their expense to read weather that’s fine, they are commercial organisations and we don’t pay for them.

Why does Midlands Today need all of their various correspondents such as Michale Paduano for health and that David Gregory- Kumar for his speciality, sometimes these presenters go weeks without giving a piece of news?

My understanding is that the majority, if not all, of the weather presenters on the BBC have a background in meteorology and that all would at least have had relevant training at the Met Office. I suppose that then lends a certain element of trust/authority in as much as they should be at least seen as being qualified to present the weather just as key news readers might be expected to have a background in journalism/reporting. I take your point though as these particular presenters may have little personal involvement in producing the actual forecasts even if they have a much better understanding of them than Joe public. As such, it may well be the case that the majority of such weather presenters then do little more than just that and that money could be saved by getting the main presenters to do the job instead once they had had some training to cover the basics. I don't think it's likely to happen though, partly because of the trust element where people assume weather presenters are qualified experts and partly simply because of the long standing tradition of the format of having a separate weather presentation.

As for the actual forecasts, I believe the BBC buys the data for their weather forecasts from the Met Office as well as from other weather monitoring/forecasting groups and then a small group of in-house meteorologists refine that data to produce the presentations we get.

Don't know about the so called regional "specialist" reporters for health, politics etc. I assume they are all proper journalists with particular interests in these fields and that they do far more work behind the scenes before any brief report hits the screens or airways but if there is no news, there is no news so don't know how they are paid or what they are paid for. They may only have part time or short term contracts where they are only paid for pieces used or possibly be part of the Local Democracy Reporting Service which is part funded by the BBC to help support regional journalism and as such they may also work for other local media outlets and be paid by the LDRS rather than by the BBC directly? Either way, you would very much like to think that they weren't paid by the BBC to do nothing!