Printable View
Last one next week
But what cracking tele (and true to life the woman got off, although I think most folk would try and see if the guy with the blue shorts and black dog was the right person before giving him a kicking)
iPlayer them if you've not already
Auntie Beeb at its best
Enjoy it while it lasts, your beloved Conservatives are sowing the seeds of its demise. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Are they really?
Making it more efficient I'd have said was a good thing not a bad thing, be nice to be funded that way.
The monopoly they have has like most of the public sector allowed it to get over paid, over manned, under worked, arrogant and complacent - time for a wake up call.
It's got a smaller turnover than BSkyB and tends to pay under the market rate (eg the Director General gets £834K [source] compared to £1.48 million to Andy Duncan at the far smaller Channel 4 [2009;source] or a £775K basic plus potential £2.3 million bonus plus £2.9 million "golden hello" for Adam Crozier at ITV [source].Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
But don't let facts get in the way, hey.
Managing with less isn't a bad thing. The BBC has had years of being able to claim a bigger and bigger licence fee, seemingly without end. It's time to freeze that for a few years and have them manage their resources more carefully and make do with what they have.
The last thing we should do is abolish or privitise the BBC, but they cannot keep being granted more and more money from licence fee payers.
Ironically the freeze on the LF - along with raiding it for things like the World Service or rural broadband - is likely to have a detrimental effect on the poorest in society.
It's estimated there are just under a million licence fee evaders, who tend to be those with little disposable income, and the BBC has traditionally not been anywhere near as stong as it should be on chasing them up. They've already stated that faced with a net loss in funding they'll be far more active in persuing and prosecuting these.
Yet another regressive coalition policy. :\
LOL. Those people shouldn't have been 'getting away with it' in the first place, so that's hardly a reason not to go after them!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Of course, what will likely happen is they'll keep harassing people who genuinely don't have a TV set, as you can only pursue some so much before it becomes uneconomical.
The likes of students living in university flats aren't likely to get a TV licence no mater how many advert campaigns there are to say they should!
In fairness I'd imagine that most students watch catchup services via computer/mobile quite legally without a licence, a loophole which no doubt will be closed as viewing habits change.
We didn't have a telly for about 15 years and used to regularly get hassle for not having a TV license, it's funny how you can get onto these lists but never off them. My Dad's mate signed him up to Saga as a bit of a joke and it took about 7 or 8 years to convince them that he wasn't over 50 and could stop sending him junk. In the end he actually had to post off a copy of his birth certificate before they would believe him :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Indeed. Most students at York have internet supplied to them in their rooms and I've heard that in the evenings the network starts to struggle purely down to the number of students using video on demand services.