Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Jonathon Ross's Salary
It's just been announced that the BBC are to pay Jonathon Ross the staggering sum of �18 million to stay with them. I find this grossly insulting due to the fact that because my husband is in N Ireland with the Army, and living in the Mess, we have to pay for two TV licences. Does anyone agree that it's time for the TV licence to be abolished?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kathyan. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I used to want the licence fee abolished until I visited the USA and saw the quality of their TV..sheesh, I thought ours was bad!
Yes, most of those TV personalities are grossly overpaid ~ but for the amount we pay every year for a licence it really isn't that much out of our pockets..I have far greater things to get angry about (car tax, fuel cost, income tax blah blah)
But I do still understand your frustrations. With regards to your husband ~ what other costs does he have to cover whilst in NI?
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Kathyan I am fully on your side, the tv licence is a real soap box issue for me. For a start, ITV etc have to agree to a certain percentage of different types of programme etc to get their licence so without the BBC I really don't think tv would get dumbed down and the BBC are as guilty of that as anyone else. Secondly, they seem to spend almost as much time advertising as anyone else albeit only advertising themselves. Finally (for now) why should I fund radio that I never listen to, digital radio I don't have a receiver for, internet pages that are unneccessary and digital tv channels that you can't even get in my area unless you buy Sky!
Now digital makes it so easy to allow/disallow certain channels they should produce tv's that cannot receive the bbc and are exempt from the licence. We'd soon see then how many people thought the BBC were value for money.
I have to agree with Pippa on this...I would rather pay to keep the BBC, than to throw it open to commerical telly and end up with nothing but US style TV.
By the way, I know some people object to paying a licence for the BBC when they don't watch it, but couldn't you also argue that it's unfair to pay for schools through taxes when (like me) you don't have kids?
By the way, I know some people object to paying a licence for the BBC when they don't watch it, but couldn't you also argue that it's unfair to pay for schools through taxes when (like me) you don't have kids?
Imagine what would happen without schools. No more doctors, nurses etc etc by the time we get old. In fact, no economy at all. Fact is that, kids or not, we all need the education system so its not really the same.
Perhaps a better compromise would be more regulation to make sure commercial tv does not degenerate to US style trash rather than relying on one alleged flagship of quality. The tv licence is really just another tax and its an unneccessary one that hits hardest the people who most need tv ie the low income families for whom it is their prime source of news, entertainment and education -I don't think The Running Man was too far off the mark when it said 'the government want people at home in front of the tv instead of out on the streets....' (getting asbos these days). Its a vital product now and people should not have to pay for it when there is a viable alternative.
BBC is not doing itself any favours by inflating salaries of "top" presenters. It should not be in the position (as it is) to set precedents in this way.
I don't think the License fee should be abolished because to be perfectly honest, the world would be a much worse place if the BBC ceased to exist. It has set world wide standards in reporting and broadcast journalism and it would be shame if it couldn't do all it does now.
BUT 18 million for a single presenter? That is not what the BBC should be about. If he wants that much cash, then he should work for a commercial broadcaster.
I take your point kazza12345, but lets face it. Free newspapers at the library are all well and good but most newspapers are more full of who is shagging who and how much money they have got than any real news,and what news is in them is usually far more opinionated that tv (which can be opinionated enough). As for education, I can honestly say that despite leaving school with a fistfull of exams I have learned far more as an adult. Finally, yes we should be able to entertain ourselves and our kids but in reality people don't they just let their kids do what they like. Of course, if you are right and we don't need tv then we don't need the BBC either so isn't that yet another case for ditching the licence?
Yes but cinema is an entirely different concept so I don't see the relevence of its cost. I mean you could argue that you could read a library book for free or look out of your window. Besides, cinema may be more expensive but the product must cost far more to make than half the garbage programs that are on even b4 you allow for repeats. (In their favour, I have to add that at least the beeb haven't yet resorted to the likes of quiz mania).
I don't think needing tv is the point, it has become an integral part of our culture and here to stay. The point is whether we should be paying so much for it, or even whether we should pay at all and I really can't see that the BBC as a bastion of quality programming is either true or requiring a licence fee to maintain.
Why is cinema a different concept?
Before TV became widespread, popular and affordable to the masses, cinema was also an integral part of the culture and allowed access to a visual representation of the news i.e. Path� newsreels.
The (not so) serious point I was making is that opponents of the licence can only base their objection on one aspect- its cost.
Well, � for � and hour for hour it is not expensive compared to other forms of entertainment, most of which have the added inconvenience of leaving your home to participate.
Before TV became widespread, popular and affordable to the masses, cinema was also an integral part of the culture and allowed access to a visual representation of the news i.e. Path� newsreels.
The (not so) serious point I was making is that opponents of the licence can only base their objection on one aspect- its cost.
Well, � for � and hour for hour it is not expensive compared to other forms of entertainment, most of which have the added inconvenience of leaving your home to participate.
I'd say it was a different concept because its a different form of entertainment ie just films but certainly hour for hour is no way to judge as you pay the same for your licence if you watch 1 hour a week as if you watch 23 hours and if you are short of money you can go to less films but with tv its all or nothing and you couldn't even say, well to cut back I won't watch tv this month because unless you sold your television its assumed you will watch so cough up and we don't care if you never tune to the BBC or even if you can get our signal clearly you still have to fund us so that we can make intenet pages and radio programmes. I can get BBC well enough but I can't get the digital stations and yet have to pay as much as someone who receives 4 times as many channels. Its simply an anachronism that we have to do away with but hell, maybe I'm wrong, I certainly seem to be in a serious minority. Everyother poster seems happy to pay for it.
With reference to my first post on this thread - the licence is not to enable you to watch the BBC, it is to allow you to watch any TV broadcast.
The monies collected are then entrusted to a body directly involved with the medium in question. This does not happen with any other tax.
Cars are integral to our culture and require licensing every year, but only a fraction of the revenue from VED returns to Roads & Transport. Surely VED should be abolished before the TV Licence.
The monies collected are then entrusted to a body directly involved with the medium in question. This does not happen with any other tax.
Cars are integral to our culture and require licensing every year, but only a fraction of the revenue from VED returns to Roads & Transport. Surely VED should be abolished before the TV Licence.
