Utter crap, get off your stupid high horse. The BBC provides free radio, which it chooses to give away. No licence is required to listen to it.
If you think they should charge for it then demand that they change it.
Latest BBC salary bands
- Thread starter JonathanM
- Start date
If you think they should charge for it then demand that they change it.
Sponsored Links
The BBC will only be sorely missed if it is destroyed by the tories and one of their puppet masters...
But are you suggesting that the BBC get out of the News business and investigative journalism?
That would certainly be one of murdoch's aims!
And don't forget the BBC has to adhere to public disclosure whereas murdoch's empire does not have that same obligation.
The daily scum has said that they will help out the BBC with any inquiry, but documents will be redacted...
In other words the lies will be hidden!
The BBC ard obliged to report news stories, the same as any other network, no matter how hurt RWR snowflakes get about dishonest lying scumbag politicians.
If you want right wing lies, go to GB News.
Lol
Most rational folk see it as a TV and radio provider.
As for their news output - who in their right mind doesn't find lying dishonest scumbag Boris and his loyal cronies, abhorrent.
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
I'm struggling to understand your point here - are you making some kind of weird strawman argument that all people who don't like the BBC think Boris is a great guy?
For the record... the BBC is money-swilling, corrupt, lying, old-fashioned and irrelevant. Boris Johnson is money-swilling, corrupt, lying, old-fashioned and irrelevant.
I hope that most people are able to understand that two wrongs definitely don't somehow make a right.
With respect, it is freeloading.
If one listens to BBC radio and consumes time shift video content without financially contributing, that (whilst perfectly legal) is freeloading. That is pretty much the definition of freeloading.
Other than the funding model argument, I don't really get the hate for the BBC i.e. those that want its total demise. If the argument is it's not balanced in its reporting, are other media establishments totally balanced? My point is, if the BBC closed at midnight tonight, what are we left with? News outlets that are all offering totally balanced content? I doubt it ...
The average salary at the BBC is £33,000, by comparison the average wage of a secondary school teacher is £42,000 and the national average for full time staff is £39,966 (not median).
Admittedly, I have no idea if the figures for the BBC include part time staff or not, nevertheless, I would image that the amount spent on presenters is a tiny fraction of the BBC's overall expenditure.
Let's say that all presenters were paid the minimum wage, I would be surprised if the licence fee would drop by as much as 10%. If that were to happen, would you honestly start paying?
You seem to get very hot around the collar, abusive and have been rather busy posting about an 'irrelevance', lol.
Long live the Beeb and all who pay her good value licence fee. Hip-hip...
Utter rubbish.
If there was a radio licence I'd pay a tenner a year or something for it. But there isn't, I don't watch any of the BBC's garbage on the TV (and didn't for years before cancelling the licence), so do not feel any compulsion to pay for it to.
They give their radio stations away for free, there isn't a licence that anyone could pay for if they wanted to.
There is nothing immoral about not having a TV licence if not watching broadcast TV or BBC content. If more people stopped paying it they'd recognise that they're failing and be forced into joining the modern world, instead of this ridiculous racket they get away with running.
They already fully own several Freeview channels that are advertising-funded, e.g. Dave, Yesterday among others. They also sell lots of content commercially, in the UK and internationally. They also go to great lengths to make their accounts as opaque as possible, e.g. by having subsidiary companies such as BBC Studios that are set up as pretend commercial suppliers, blocking public scrutiny. They are taking money from people AND charging again for many of their services.
It's the funding that seems to be the main issue for most folk. A million quid a year to front a sports show or read the news is beyond the pale when the BBC is taking a great deal of funding from 'the people'. Then the eye-watering amounts of money they pour into soaps, costume drama and assorted crap will always annoy people who don't watch them. The BBC is for everyone and everyone will have an opinion on it.
I suspect that the BBC alienated a lot of people during covid because they didn't entertain the notion that that the WEF/NWO invented the covid vaccines to kill half of the population.
The most worrying part is that those people still believe that there is a plan to cull people. Frankly those people are so far down the rabbit hole that I regret not having sold bacofoil covered canaries in cages. I'd be minted, oh and then, I could have sold t-shirts that are guaranteed to protect you from nuclear fall out.
I kinda miss the days when it was just the far right knuckle draggers that had it in for the BBC. Unfortunately, covid conspiracies appealed to people on both the far left and right.
Use a search engine and post back the definition of "freeloading".
I note that you completely sidestepped my question where I asked if you would be willing to pay 90% of the licence fee if presenters were paid minimum wages.
There used to be a be a radio licence up until 1971 but it was dropped because of the TV licence- I guess it seemed unfair to make people pay for both a tv licence and radio licence given the massive rise in TV ownership. The cost of radio licences was so low that , it probably wasn't cost efficient to try to enforce the payments.
BBC studios was born of BBC World Wide, they used to be next to the A40 near the White City Television Centre. It is part of the BBC that is not funded via the TV licence. It generates profits independently of the licence fee, but those profits reduce the licence fee.
The likes of Dave TV shows content that the BBC has already paid to create. Content that would not generate any revenue in the UK otherwise. Would you rather that, for example, old copies of Steptoe and Son, were locked away in a vault?
Oh and, yeah, and I know this, Dave Tv uses channel four to broker the adverts on their site. Channel 4 is owned by the government. The UK government makes a profit from any advertising on the likes of Dave TV
I have sympathy with your post.
I am not a fan of soaps or costume dramas but as someone that spends most of my day listening to radio4, I am so glad that R4 exists. I cannot think of any other radio station that will (periodically) fact check their own content.
If someone else can name a UK news radio station that will do so, I will consider trying that station.... Ultimately, there isn't another one though. Why is that? Perhaps it is a function of the fact that the BBC, being licence funded and being accountable,but hey let's get rid of organisations that (try to) police themselves.
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2021
- Messages
- 2,416
- Reaction score
- 339
- Country
I admire your love & respect of your BBC.
Can you understand that the number of people who object to the license fee now (vastly) outnumber the number of people who don't?
Radio Snore has a very loyal number of listeners & it serves its demographic very well, but sadly this demographic cannot possibly fund its continued existence without the cross funding from the folk who likes the soaps & the costume drama's !
If you can perceive this, then I would dearly like to sit down & have a chat with anyone who can lay claim to periodically fact checking their own content.
Sponsored Links