The Politics Thread

Why not, we pay tax to fund the thing?

 

Because their competitors will use the information to entice them away and the BBC will drift into mediocrity. Anyway, if I am a Civil Servant, I don't see why that fact means my salary should be bandied around to all and sundry.

 

If West Ham and the LLDC can claim commercially sensitive about their deal why should the BBC have to reveal anything.

Answer . Because the Tories are trying to destroy the BBC .

 

Don't forget the BBC already releases information about how much it pays in salaries. The difference here is that people are named - and I can't see how much extra benefit knowing that provides. If people want more information the BBC could say something like "we have 5 people at £500k, 10 people at £300k" or whatever. And also as I said it's meaningless in the sense that money paid to presenters via independent production companies is not included.

 

The "independent" company stuff (one man companies etc) is supposed to be
banned by the BBC. For their (primary) BBC work, they are supposed to be employees.
What work they do for other parties, they can use whatever worker structure they
desire (as their total tax will be done via their self-assessment returns) .

And the BBC is taxpayer funded, because the "licence fee" is a tax
(it should be deemed a "media tax" , and collected by the Inland Revenue) .

 

The licence fee is not a tax it is a charge for a service. Some of us do not use this service and therefore do not buy a licence. For example I do not use schools but I still pay towards their costs because I pay council tax and income tax.
Growing numbers of people are not using television services and therefore not needing a licence so I've no doubt they will turn it into a tax but at the moment it is not.

 

Untrue.

1. The "licence fee" is paid by any UK denizen that has equipment capable of
RECEIVING the BBC "services" .

2. If I use my equipment to receive only non-BBC broadcast services (ITV,
Virgin radio etc) , I still have to pay the fee for services I am NOT USING or
be deemed to be breaking the law.

#2 has all the traits of a ... TAX (mandatory, paid whether you use a "service" or not) .

 

You are out of date I don't have an aerial so that used to be the basis now it includes using i player but you do not need a tv licence just because you have a computer or a smart phone you need a licence if have a TV capable of receiving and you use i player, if, as I do, you don't have/use either then you do not need a licence.

I just knew you would argue LOL

 

You do realise that the iPlayer radio NOW has a login reqt, that requires you
to give residential addr info so that their Stasi can cross-ref IP addresses
with "licence" payer info ??


"I just knew you would" correct me on what is really going on.

 

A company asks you to prove that you're paying them to use their service, in order to use their service?

 

A UK state-owned company asks a possible UK denizen attempting to access
their services via the Internet ...

1. No problem with that.

2. Which of course is the polar opposite of :

A UK-state owned company asks a UK denizen with broadcast reception
equipment to pay a tax, because they cannot prove the denizen has never
received / will ever seek to receive their service.

 

2 isn't the case, though.

 

Please feel free to direct me to info on the tech over the past 50 yrs (inside TVs
manufactured in the UK etc) that proves equipment owners have never or at
least once received a BBC service.

 

You don't have to do that, though.

 

That is what I just pointed out, read my post.

Amazing as it may seem I can live very happily without piped TV or the BBC i player. Thanks to the WWW I can access the whole world which I have to say is a fair bit more interesting than reality TV and Soaps.

 

One real piece of bastardry was how TV Licensing dicked over my entire house in my first year at uni: as every single room had a separate lock, that meant they legally counted as flats (even though they weren't, given it was a student digs) so every single person in my house with a TV had to pay a license for their room. To put it another way, TV Licensing managed to chisel at least £800 out of one student digs - and that's clearly taking the piss

 

On the subject of the BBC salary announcement, it's good to see that the loathsome Piers Moron is determined to remain the most hated pseudo-journalist on the planet, even amongst his peers - which is really setting the bar high!!

http://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-...6&utm_term=0061ce1140918a247e2cef6b589c38288e

 

The licence fee is a tax. I can't see the start of a debate on this one.
The nasty bit of the legislation is criminalising those who watch TV without one. That's absurd.
And it's an outdated system and has been for decades.
It should be scrapped now.
The BBC already raises significant income from its commercial activities. If it was given the ability to increase its revenue streams, including through advertising, it would thrive. It can remain a public body whilst not being funded by taxes. It can still have a public service remit without being in the pocket of the government.

 

Well in actual fact the BBC already makes s nice little earner from advertising revenue. Just go to the BBC website outside the UK and see the banner ads splashed across the entire site.

Also stations like BBC America has commercials.

They also sell the shows our money funds so they're taking the piss.

 

You still pay for the other channels, whether it is by subscription or by buying anything that is advertised. Not including subscriptions you probably pay four to five times the licence fee to Commercial television companies even though you may not have a TV. When I had to pay it I thought it was good value for the price of a pint of beer a week