Jump to content

TV license fee to increase again.

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, woodview said:

Surely the EU could help fund the brexit bashing corporation, for the work it's doing?

According to the  EU Financial Transparency System, the BBC received 4,850,000 € in grant funding in 2017.

 

The BBC requests EU money. The BBC receives EU money.

Edited by Car Boot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Car Boot said:

According to the  EU Financial Transparency System, the BBC received 4,850,000 € in grant funding in 2017.

 

The BBC requests EU money. The BBC receives EU money.

Funding for its international development charity (main funder is the government) and for research and development into the likes of Freeview and DAB radio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Longcol said:

Funding for its international development charity (main funder is the government) and for research and development into the likes of Freeview and DAB radio.

The BBC has been requesting, and receiving, £millions of pounds of EU money . It kept this secret from the BBC TV licence fee payer until a Freedom of Information request forced it to reveal it. BBC accounts did not reveal the source of this free money, it was just referred to as 'grant income'. The BBC believes that the licence payer shouldn't be made aware that it receives EU funding and did not reveal this information voluntarily.

 

The BBC has not given a detailed account of how it's EU funding is spent as it considers this information to be "too sensitive" for the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, spilldig said:

It is money that is far better off in apelike's pocket than the BBCs greedy coffers.

So i should give my fee away rather than spend it on myself/family...do you drink/smoke run a car etc  whose coffers are you putting it in???..it's just an excuse for being a tight wad....

13 hours ago, Car Boot said:

All those exotic places you imagined you travelled to were really just sat in front of your TV set, being slowly anaesthetised. All those long hours of conditioning you've absorbed...

 

Participate in life - not spectate!

Yes you're right,but i have enjoyed it nevertheless (but i do think being called "Anaesthetised is a bit strong :o)...it's called relaxing  at the end of the day,although i do spend more time reading than watching T.V.......As i have already said..i have seen things i never would have,and have the knowledge of those things too.... how do you participate in life other than "seemingly"..moan all the time ????.   sit twiddling your thumbs..in front of a computer screen being a keyboard warrior... ;)..each to their own.....have a nice day...

Edited by euclid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, euclid said:

it's just an excuse for being a tight wad....

No, as it has already been stated the £154.50 is better off in my pocket especially as I dont watch broadcast TV.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, euclid said:

So i should give my fee away rather than spend it on myself/family...do you drink/smoke run a car etc  whose coffers are you putting it in???..it's just an excuse for being a tight wad....

Yes you're right,but i have enjoyed it nevertheless (but i do think being called "Anaesthetised is a bit strong :o)...it's called relaxing  at the end of the day,although i do spend more time reading than watching T.V.......As i have already said..i have seen things i never would have,and have the knowledge of those things too.... how do you participate in life other than "seemingly"..moan all the time ????.   sit twiddling your thumbs..in front of a computer screen being a keyboard warrior... ;)..each to their own.....have a nice day...

Can't quite get what you mean about tight, but I will try and use your analogy as it would apply to the  BBC.  So if all was run as the BBC is run, when you  went to the filling station to fill your vehicle you would also have to give money to the filling station down the road, or risk  a fine and a criminal record. If  you went to the pub for a drink you would also have to give money to the pub down the  road, if you gave money  to your family you would also have to give money to the family next door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have this morning told the BBC to go stuff themselves and that I will no longer be paying the license fee.


The last straw for me was last week's Question Time in which a passionate normal member of the public who argued loudly that politicians should get on with Brexit was minutes later revealed by social media to NOT be a normal member of the public at all, but a former UKIP parliamentary candidate.

 

This has happened too many times for it to be a coincidence.  It is also plainly not a coincidence because the Question Time Audience Producer, the person responsible for selecting the audience and prioritising those who speak from the audience, is a lady called Alison Fuller-Pedley, a woman who has been reprimanded in the past for circulating Britain First propaganda online.

 

Enough is enough.  The BBC is free to take that sort of position if it wants too; I am equally free to opt out of paying for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bendix said:

I have this morning told the BBC to go stuff themselves and that I will no longer be paying the license fee.


The last straw for me was last week's Question Time in which a passionate normal member of the public who argued loudly that politicians should get on with Brexit was minutes later revealed by social media to NOT be a normal member of the public at all, but a former UKIP parliamentary candidate.

 

This has happened too many times for it to be a coincidence.  It is also plainly not a coincidence because the Question Time Audience Producer, the person responsible for selecting the audience and prioritising those who speak from the audience, is a lady called Alison Fuller-Pedley, a woman who has been reprimanded in the past for circulating Britain First propaganda online.

 

Enough is enough.  The BBC is free to take that sort of position if it wants too; I am equally free to opt out of paying for it.

And I quote, "The last straw for me was last week's Question Time in which a passionate normal member of the public who argued loudly that politicians should get on with Brexit was minutes later revealed by social media to NOT be a normal member of the public at all, but a former UKIP parliamentary candidate."

 

So you were quite happy until you saw Twitter;that medium of reason.  

 

And well done Bendix on the final post os the return of the IS UK Bride just before the whole post was closed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

And I quote, "The last straw for me was last week's Question Time in which a passionate normal member of the public who argued loudly that politicians should get on with Brexit was minutes later revealed by social media to NOT be a normal member of the public at all, but a former UKIP parliamentary candidate."

 

So you were quite happy until you saw Twitter;that medium of reason.  

 

And well done Bendix on the final post os the return of the IS UK Bride just before the whole post was closed. 

I was quite happy assuming he was an ordinary member of the public who was lucky enough to have his view expressed on QT.  The last straw was finding out, yet again, that he was a politician, presumably planted there by the far right wing audience producer.  How it was revealed is irrelevant.

 

It's not the first time it's happened. Another UKIP Parliamentarian was allowed on and made comments from the audience on no fewer than three occasions.  Coincidence perhaps?  Or directly linked to the audience producer's agenda?

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bbc-investigates-ukip-candidate-s-third-time-in-question-time-crowd-qbznpfdpf

 

As for the final post . . i prefer to think of it as the last word.  I'm not responsible for the over-modding of the forum, thankfully. 

Edited by bendix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bendix said:

I was quite happy assuming he was an ordinary member of the public who was lucky enough to have his view expressed on QT.  The last straw was finding out, yet again, that he was a politician, presumably planted there by the far right wing audience producer.  How it was revealed is irrelevant.

 

It's not the first time it's happened. Another UKIP Parliamentarian was allowed on and made comments from the audience on no fewer than three occasions.  Coincidence perhaps?  Or directly linked to the audience producer's agenda?

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bbc-investigates-ukip-candidate-s-third-time-in-question-time-crowd-qbznpfdpf

 

As for the final post . . i prefer to think of it as the last word.  I'm not responsible for the over-modding of the forum, thankfully. 

The clue is in the word FORMER as in was one but now they are not.   Besides they were just a candidate anyway not an elected official so it's irrelevant. 

 

In the real world that does make them just an ordinary member of the public who is just as entitled to be there as anyone else.    

 

Quite frankly if that is the reason for ditching the BBC it's rather ott and completely misguided. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think it’s misguided to decide I don’t want my money to pay for an organisation which employs a Britain First sympathiser to choose the audience members and speakers of the network’s flagship political debate show.  

 

If you disagree, no problem. Bbc produces nothing I want to watch anymore.  I watch all my tv via IPTV anyway.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/02/2019 at 10:17, spilldig said:

Exactly that, seeing as the British old age pension is the lowest in the civilised world. The normal working week in this country whilst I have been working, is 40 hours. 

The government states a minumim of 8 pounds 21p per hour so therefore every pensioner should be on a minimum of 328 pounds 40p per week,  otherwise it is  less than the amount that the government states as  a minimum. Then perhaps it would enable OAPs to have a decent standard of living, and the government to stop treating them like second class citizens with gimmics like free tv livences and bus passes with strings attached, etc.   As for the disgusting BBC it should have been wound up years ago.

We have too many fingers in the kitty taking out, that's the bottom line. So we will have to live on scraps that are handed  out to us in our old age.

 

Angel1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.