I've had some great fun at the BBC's expense over the years and I've never once paid for a licence. I've had their 'enforcers' arrive trying to bully me because there's no licence registered at the property. I've opened the gates and allowed them onto the property then closed the gates behind them. They've then falsely claimed they're 'officers' and that they have a warrant to search the property ... they don't, its just a photocopy. I've then refused them entry to the house as the owners were Russian/American/Lebanese/Abu Dhabi and not only non resident but not interested in UK TV. They've inevitably insisted they have the power of entry and the right to call the police to intervene. W**kers!!! I can't imagine how they must terrorise some old Doris or single mother struggling to make ends meet. The best result I ever had was at the Sheikh's place in Surrey. Two really bombastic 'officers' turned up at 10am demanding entry to the mansion. The head gardener opened the gates, allowed them entry then closed the gates behind them. It was 15 minutes before midnight before I let them out ... I absolutely tore them to pieces on the law regarding licences.
The BBC seem to suggest that everything donated is spent by The Charity. https://www.bbcchildreninneed.co.uk/about-us/faqs/ I presume though that there will be production costs involved in putting this programme out and they may well feel that they are entitled to recover these but the reverse of the argument would be that they are having their evining schedule filled by a massively popular show for which they have to bare the costs. As for the License, I got my 'free' one for the first time last year. Didn't make a lot of sense as I don't need it and the money would be better spent on those who do.
According to their website 5% of all donations go to cover the costs of the charity, they are quite open about this. The Chief Executives salary is £134,235 which they are also open about. The charity guarantees that a minimum 95% of all donations go to good causes.
The BBC has defended its decision to award some of its highest-paid executives wage rises of up to 30 per cent. The raises, worth up to £75,000 each, mean that the number of BBC managers earning more than £150,000 has gone up to 102, four more than last year, despite promises to reduce the figure. MPs criticised the “scandalous” increases at a time when the average annual pay rise is 3.3 per cent and when the corporation is trying to cut programme budgets. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...as defended its,promises to reduce the figure.
I have always found the BBC argument in support of their enormous salaries that they must pay the market rate somewhat deceitful. The fact is that they are the market, every other media organisation has to earn its money rather than be given it so must be as frugal as possible. This is also compounded by the well known fact in the business that the BBC staff numbers covering events or incidents is 3 or 4 times that of the others.
What's great these days of the BBC. What do they offer as a 'taxed' service? Highlights of sport... No thank you..they really don't have any. I can't remember the last time I saw a decent drama. Overpaid presenters....whether News or Sport... BBC are so bias as shown in the Brexit referendum it was embarrassing. So really what, as a 'Great British Institution' do they offer? The quicker they get rid of this outdated tax and go to a subscription service the better. In its current guise, a subscription service will be the demise of this utter ****e service. The sooner the better.
"In my simple mind the FA have the right to agree on naming and renaming, but this rule is either because you are exercising bullying or because you have a reason. I don't think the FA is in the business of bullying. If it is a good reason, it is to protect English football from misuse. Someone could come and say they would change the name to Red Bull Football Club or Coca Cola Football Club and so on - or a rude name, Red Bottom Football Club - and they would have a right to protect football from that" - Assem Allam, 2014
Its a superb scam.....have the population of the country pay for a service (by law) and then deliver substandard programming, never ending repeats and pay people scandalous amounts of money for minimum input. They also cut parts of the service on a regular basis but do not reduce pro-rata the licence fee. That said, I do watch the BBC news on a regular basis.
I watch BBC News but it's really wasteful in certain aspects. I find it really annoying when they have a reporter standing outside a hospital all day reporting that 'Prince Phillip has been admitted for a routine procedure' ... ... it's not even news ffs, it's just another pensioner having a boil removed. Even if it was news it's just a building with loads of windows, no need to have a reporter and camera crew there at all.
I've never thought of it in that way, and it's a dam good point. I expect they do it that way becasue it's the way it's always been done. Mind you, streamlining this approach, however sensible, would reduce the technical staff numbers quite heavily I expect. That in turn SHOULD have a knock on effect on the Executives. When it comes to a fight with their Unions, The BBC tend to do rather badly I recall.
Why would anybody would praise an organisation that systemically covered up the child abuse by its employees which then made innocent victims not able to get justice. The BBC have also been caught out on numerous occasions making up lies to suit their left wing bias. I’ve never paid them for years because they covered up sexual abuse of children. Somebody tell me I’m wrong? If you pay your TV licence please answer yes or no, is it on your conscience or does it bother you that the BBC covered up child abuse?
just in 139 staff receive a loyalty payment 5,000 each which came from tv licences, anybody aware how many over 75s that were coerced into paying the fee, and it took to pay the staff the mind boggles
