The BBC’s Middle Name Is Turmoil!

The fight for the tv licence fee is on, and The BBC reckon they wouldn’t do well without it. I’d love to find out
Source - inews.co.uk/ne...
Need to email me? You can do it here (for faster advice use the link above)- www.tvlicences...
For TV Licence advice and help, take a look at the forum here - www.tvlicencer...
#tvlicence #bbc

[@RonaldShea5680]

The sickening greed of the bbc and it's employees is truly nauseating.

[@mickogden2223]

It's time householders voted via their wallets by not buying now not waiting till 2027

[@Larry]

The BBC do need to justify why people still need to pay for a licnese in 2024 if all they do is pay presenters insane amounts of money, belittle their audience and make shows that no one wants to see.

[@FurQ69]

They got away with this for years why do you think anything will change ?

[@robtheplod]

People dont need to pay... this issue is many dont reasise and pay out of habit..

[@vicwiseman2340]

Just cancelled my license. No problem cancelling but they wanted documents proving that I'd sold my property for me to receive a refund. Feel better already not having to pay for this ridiculous tax! Another one bites the dust, Lineker will be getting worried now, he'll be signing on soon! Thanks Jon. 😀👍

[@cplcabs]

They wanted documents to prove you sold your property? That is utterly ridiculous. Who do they think they are.

[@theskidmarkoforion4829]

I would advise a policy of no contact whatsoever. If the Goons know you as “ legal Occupier “ contacting them to cancel you have to provide your name. Absolutely none of their business if you don’t require a license. If like me your watching tv legit then let them waste money and resources sending threatograms etc

[@enkisdaughter4795]

RB also had a co-conspirator for that awful thing that occurred when he was on BBC2. Neither of them should have ever been allowed to broadcast again, in my opinion.

[@jeepsthetimebandit]

I hope you didn't provide it. How did you cancel it? I did it online and ticked one or two boxes and it was all done. I'd question that, if I were you. It sounds very suspicious.

[@rikbryan9709]

Welcome to the club. Another £159 less for the BBC.

[@fredo1070]

So what is Huw Edwards doing these days? Are we still paying his wages?

[@fredo1070]

@@random_Person347 Prince Andrew no doubt.

[@DavidSmith-ze2wi]

Jesus Christ! Another reason I won't be buying a licence.

[@pcwizardman]

Who would pay for the lavish lunches and expense accounts? They must be suffering!

[@alexalston3001]

I think BBC should shut down all their unsustainable non commercial channels like BBC1 and donate the licence funds to the NHS.

[@fisherman5517]

it would only be wasted ,donate it to help the homeless veterans of war to find a nice warm snuggly home to live in .

[@englishciderlover7347]

@@fisherman5517 All government agencies waste money like nobody's business, but the NHS is probably the worst offender.

[@fayabogush2956]

NHS has so much money - and just wastes it.

[@fisherman5517]

@@fayabogush2956 just like the bbc.

[@anonnemo2504]

Who would pay for a TV licence if the BBC shut down its channels? Re the video, of course the BBC showing adverts would reduce advertising income for those who already show adverts. To argue otherwise is ridiculous. The advertising "cake" is only so big because companies wanting to sell their products have fixed advertising budgets. You can cut more slices but you can't make the cake bigger. Anyway, forget BBC branded channels ever showing adverts. The BBC don't want to. They much prefer an easier way of getting their money and no government would ever allow it.

[@johnturner1073]

The best thing on TV for years was Mr Bates vs The Post Office...not just the best, but it would seem the most important. It was the sort of stuff the BBC used to do, but because there was no way they could slip in their modern core agenda/narrative/values, it didn't stand a chance of being made by them today. In fact it went against one of their key beliefs as it portrayed ''power women'' in a very dim light. Now they are playing catch-up on the story.

[@gerry6612]

Totally agree bbc should be a subscription and adverts NOT a media tax, why should people like me who don't own a tv be made to pay for the bbc by a tax

[@timg1246]

​@festungs If it goes to income tax, everyone with a job pays without exception. Then the BBC's budget would NEVER get cut, however few were actually watching.

[@pjcnet]

Based on what our crappy government said about being based upon means, I think adding it to Council tax it more likely the plan, but they'll probably wait until after the general election before risking upsetting too many people and by then Labour will probably be in anyway who are just part of the same uni-party, but with less rebellious back benchers to slow things down, they won't want to lose their propaganda arm either. The most likely way to reduce backlash would be to add it to general taxation so everyone is still forced to pay it, but without noticing and that's possible too. It's about time the people stood up against the leaders who don't represent them.

[@fayabogush2956]

Nobody will subscribe and BBC know it. They don't produce anything competitive - why to try if money is coming anyway. And all these services in foreign countries we have to pay for.

[@KatCohen-wj1kx]

Should they add it to council tax I will withhold it and refuse to pay!! I will pay to get my bins emptied and for libraries etc. I will refuse to pay for TV service I don't use same as I do now

[@timg1246]

​@@KatCohen-wj1kxSame here, which is why it is un-likely to go on council tax. Councils have already said they are against it because the resistance it would face is easily foreseeable. Income tax is far more likely.

[@JoyceTenerife]

Regardless of what you think of Lineker and Co...NOBODY deserves the salaries paid to these people, remembering it's US paying! We spend more on these nonentities than we do on decent quality programming. For heavens sake sell advertising, everyone else does it,and we manage to live with it!

[@Tom_murray89]

Yes it is time to switch to an advertising or subscription model.

[@WhiteDieselShed]

Wonder how much the bonuses are whilst they are losing money and claiming there are not enough funds? If your business only receives £1m and only £250k is profit then you cannot pay yourself a £500k bonus. About time the BBC brass found that out.

[@Essemess2812]

They can implement what ever funding model they want as long as I can opt out as I don't watch anything I would need a TV License for.

[@user-xz4rm6wl8d]

Totally agree

[@Sav453]

You make so many good points you should bring them up in Parliament

[@tech10k14]

Ah right. Subscription won't bring in enough so; "You won't pay willingly, so we'll force you", eh? No matter what, DO NOT PAY!

[@StooFras-TheFiresofHell.]

They would have plenty money left over if they dumped Lineker,total waste of space, taking money under false pretences,our money.🤔

[@leegould5306]

I thought the middle name was Buggering, as in : Broadcasters Buggering Children

[@waynestockton8953]

I'm glad 2023 was a bad year for the BBC and fingers crossed it just keeps on getting worse this year

[@richardjames3022]

It still doesn't address the issue of why should I pay the BBC (I don't have a licence, so don't watch live TV) to watch commercial channels and above all to watch a channel from another country

[@norseko]

I cancelled my license after Christmas holidays i have removed my aerial completely, opted for Disney+ and netflix and xbox gamepass ...to hell with this rubbish.

[@robtheplod]

Well done... removing your aerial was unnecessary though..

[@user-nx8ii4ef7f]

The BBC has many names, few of them repeatable!

[@jimbabwe3246]

The world service needs to go. No value in it.

[@owenmcghee1666]

Russell Brand scandal on BBC2 is worse than you have said. The. Programme was a recording and producers allowed it to air. You are still right but that's just a small detail. Love your work.

[@garyrichards6079]

The Beeb don't want to compete with the other channels with ADVERTS cause they know how crap they are and don't want to spend money on improving the quality of it's programming , when they can get YOUR money for FREE all 3.7 Billon + a year in Licence Fee payments !!

[@johnturner1073]

All true, the irony is though they would love to show the adverts featuring all the mixed (up) relationships!

[@Kivetonandrew]

Just think how much money they would save by not employing Capita for their services of Goons and letter writer producing. The letters alone must cost millions in postage charges.

[@ronnierush9379]

Its all about keeping the BBC gravy train rolling. They are lying through their teeth saying that a subscription form of funding would not work.🤑

[@Stevie-P123]

I think it's pretty obvious what "quality" they wish to maintain. Their extortionate budget and over inflated pay packets.

[@Stevie-P123]

@@Greylobsterfinally the country is waking up. They produce nothing of interest to me apart from the odd laughable statement like this one.😄

[@AdrianFWImages]

Zany idea, ask the people what they want... A referendum! Call the BBC's bluff once and for all.

[@user-ef5ug6jx5n]

The BBC used to know the simple truth of media production: All it takes to make a good TV show is a good idea, hard work, and a camera. You don't need millions. You don't need diversity. You dont need to be hostile to the native population, their culture, their history, and their skin colour. Just a camera, an idea, and a bit of elbow grease. How much did each episode of Red Dwarf cost?

[@ScratchySlide]

Might be a good idea for them to drop the "British" from the name....

[@VultureUk-steve]

I think if the bbc go subscription nobody would pay anyway

[@MikeEves]

It already is. I don't subscribe, so I pay nothing.

[@casper1240]

Why bother making any new programmes when we can get over 3 Billion for REPEATS easy peasy we need to do nothing at all and keep getting money off Gullible people

[@steveelkins52]

Can we have a forensic examination of the actual cost of each product last year?

[@davidrae2215]

I am 76. I don’t watch the news or any other media. Netflix, Amazon and KZbin satisfy any questions I have.

[@andyfreestone7616]

Any sensible person would ask the question, why don't the BBC advertise ? They ply more self advertising on their program

[@RonaldShea5680]

Millions of British households no longer pay the bbc poll tax, why not join them?

[@John-mz8rj]

What you give out, you get back.

[@Del640]

Year of turmoil, life of turdmoil!

[@zomdiczapper7]

The BBC the black broadcasting coparation !

[@zomdiczapper7]

I bet Huw Edwards is on full pay

[@colinlawless5654]

Middle name is bent.

[@darrenbyrne4657]

Hello blue. It's just excuse after excuse with the beeb. As you said they don't want to work for it. Watch this space l suppose. Stonking video. Bye for now bud. 🤗😃✋✋👍

[@clairemooney1429]

i thought the tv licence was being cancelled people have to many bills to pay and this is the only country that has a licence america doesnt have a licence they get to watch tv for free its time for the licence to stop for good

[@ravingnutter1698]

I may change my name to ''The Legal Occupant'' as I seem to be getting letters every month under this name.😂 Happy Friday.

[@robinburn4974]

A big TV is only good for one thing and that's for the X Box

[@davidrae2215]

The license was because no advertising. ITV, Granada, Thames etc, , no license fee. No advertising. When did this change?

[@nickerrison-davey9099]

1) that BBC radio show were Brand made that phone call,didn't he have Jonathan Ross in the studio with him 🤔 2) can you imagine the BBC showing adverts of things that are "taking the world by storm"? 😂

[@michaelblackmore4332]

Cancel your licence and encourage your friends and family to do the same.

[@zammo54]

i really hope you are wrong in that they will bring in a media tax , whatever government brings that in will make them really unpopular . i was seriously considering ditching my tv licence this year as i can happily live without the bbc

[@Its_the_sun]

After a window tax, then council tax, then a bedroom tax, a media tax wouldn't suprise me. It's Shocking these idiots can get away with it.

[@NineLivesburra]

The bedroom tax does not actually exist. The council is not going to cover a room that is underused. It is technically part of council tax and that is solely the responsibility of your local council, not Westminster. As for a media tax, I totally agree. We should not be forced to pay for something we do not use.

[@Its_the_sun]

@NineLivesburra some tenants that have an unused bedroom have to pay for it I'm paying for it so it's called a bedroom tax regardless. 🤔

[@dizwell]

​@NineLivesburra I have to pay for schools and universities, but I don't have kids using them. I personally don't pay the licence because I don't even have a TV in the house, and I'll therefore be mightily annoyed if they arrange things such that I end up paying for that which I can currently opt out of paying... But the argument you make that you shouldn't have to pay for things you don't personally use is obvious nonsense when you consider all the "social goods" we pay for through taxation that we don't personally consume. You are certainly free to argue that the BBC shouldn't be considered one of those 'social goods', but that's a fairly recent perspective and not the one that actually applies to the current BBC.

[@NineLivesburra]

@@dizwell you make a fair point that I hadn't thought of. I don't agree that my point is total nonsense though. Perhaps I should have said something like 'TV licences should never be considered priority bills or taxes because they are not absolutely necessary for life.' Would you agree with that?

[@dizwell]

@@NineLivesburra Well, I think so, but I'd want to clarify the context. Of course I agree entirely that the TV licence is not necessary for life! As a child of the seventies, I never thought I'd live to see the day that TV became optional -but four years into not having one, I can quite see that in a world of KZbin and streaming services, it is completely dispensable and is certainly not the 'priority' I think it once probably was. However, there are a lot of KZbin videos about where quite loud and aggressive people do battle with 'the licensing goons' on their doorsteps and make it blindingly obvious that they are almost certainly the sort that don't want to pay the licence and yet _do_ wish to keep watching live TV. Thus we see people who say things like, 'I can't stand that Gary Lineker, and he earns way too much, so why should I pay?' or 'the left-wing bias of the BBC is appalling, so I don't think I should pay' or '£3 billion a year for that rubbish! It's an outrage and I shouldn't have to pay into such excess' etc etc. I'm old-school enough to think that if by your voluntary actions you incur a bill (or a tax), then it ought to be paid, and such excuses not to do so are spurious. And a bill once incurred _is_ a priority to pay, no matter to whom it has to be paid.

[@mygreatbigfoot1679]

Did you see the post office witch finder Stephen Bradshaw that worked for tv licensing?

[@fisherman5517]

i delete or turn off the adds ,not interested .😪😪

[@frankbrodie5168]

The comment in the report about only making stuff that people would pay to watch is like the snobbery shown by the film industry about Adam Sandler films. Critics have genuinely said about Adam Sandler films "Well he's only making films that are popular.. So he's a crappy actor/producer.." EH? Only releases films that people want to watch? Well imagine that. The cheek of the man!

[@onlybugwit]

I used to love listening to the world service but not anymore, it's completely crap

[@dama054]

When is ITV going to do a drama about TV licencing and how the bully people and convict innocent people mainly females and venerable people

[@pjcnet]

The BBC are a joke, other channels produce quality programmes on a fraction of their budget. If the BBC produce enough programmes people want to watch then they'd survive on their own no problem, otherwise they're not worth saving.

[@CidCatfield-np2cv]

Shut down

[@johnredfern7286]

It's really is a Household Tax.

[@theskidmarkoforion4829]

Advertising business is so good they can afford to boycott companies with large viewing numbers because they don’t like their opinions.

[@johncale7139]

Going back to when there were only 3 channels. The bbc used the same argument then as now as that there was not enough money spare in advertising

[@MrNickGreen]

I don’t mind a few ads. Crack on. Prime are gonna put ads on. Bit disappointing but still very happy with the service they provide. Programs and postage free on shopping, prime music to stream, prime photos cloud back up. All part of that one fee. Brilliant.

[@android4219]

I can’t understand why the other live tv broadcaster’s don’t argue against the license fee. With thousands of people cancelling tv licenses each month, it must affect their advertising profits. Surely if people don’t have a license and are playing by the rules (not watching live tv) people aren’t seeing the adverts either. 🤔

[@jackwaycombe]

The quiet acquiescence of the independent channels has astonished me for years.

[@robtheplod]

They dont want BBC to go advertising as not much to go around..

[@andymeadows2768]

I have taken iplayer off my phone & I pad Jon

[@tonyhughes27]

Does hew Edwards still get paid ?

[@richardstables4009]

No Other Channels Charge To Watch Other Tv Channels So Why Should The BBC Charge To Watch Other Channels On British Free TV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@Gerrit-Max]

In my personal opinion the bbc has only ever made 2 decent series. 1 Humans. 2 Survivors. Both were axed 😠

[@YammoYammamoto]

Sweden has the exact same model - called SVT(Swedish Telivision) IT had to change the license fee(which was a defacto tax on TVs)... to a proper tax. I still refuse to have a TV in my house.

[@roncouch]

Yes indeed, apart from endless repeats and films going back “generations”, what ARE they actually producing which is fresh, watchable, value for money and reflecting, proportionally, the culture of the greater majority of viewers of this country? That statement about subscription not funding sufficiently the needs of the BBC programme makers just shows how completely out of touch these BBC types actually are!

[@georgedavidson957]

doctor who was worth every penny I dont pay them - the amount of entertainment I got via youtube channels flaming the program was huge. glad I didnt watch the program given how bad it was

[@waynekerrr9027]

I am licence free..Is it legal to watch repeat bbc programmes on a App on firestick which is not iplayer ???

[@garyhart6421]

BBC & Quality

[@stephenB-yq9kw]

Do you make chili concani as my local shop sells lots of you for sale

[@Anthony-eb5gl]

What happened to the good ol BBC canteen..that spawned a thousand anecdotes and cor blimey me jokes... Which many a typically mediocre toss pot, from the govt propaganda machine, that is the BBC, would tantalising entertainment the masses.

[@themole1944]

The BBc for entertainment purposes only

[@rickyj5547]

Is it the useless maker of unwatchable crap.

[@darkhall8227]

cancel eastenders

[@grahamhall8249]

Plenty of advertising to go around for the BBC, How many times have you changed channel just to see the same advert? It's a big scam and misinformation from BBC, which they're very good at!

[@anonnemo2504]

Of course the BBC showing adverts would reduce advertising income for those who already show adverts. To argue otherwise is ridiculous. The advertising "cake" is only so big. You can cut more slices but you can't make the cake bigger. Anyway, forget BBC branded channels ever showing adverts. The BBC don't want to. They much prefer an easier way of getting their money and no government would ever allow it.

[@johnturner1073]

The irony is they would love to show the adverts featuring all the mixed (up) relationships!

[@anonnemo2504]

@@johnturner1073 Indeed so. I can't remember the last time I saw an advert only featuring a white, biological male, a white biological female and white children.

[@grahamhall8249]

BBC showing adverts wouldn't reduce advertising income for those who already show adverts. How many times have you turned over to see the same advert on another channel?

[@anonnemo2504]

@@grahamhall8249 What does that prove? Anyway, of course, the BBC showing adverts would reduce advertising income for those that already do. Companies pushing their products decide upon a TV advertising budget for the year and what they are going to spend is in no way influenced by the numbers of TV channels able to show their adverts.

[@grahamhall8249]

@@anonnemo2504 just proves there's enough to go around. If they can show an ad, why can't BBC show it?

[@subhendukumarmondal2867]

Translate

[@sampennington1078]

Yaaaawwwwwnnnnnnn

[@dizwell]

4:48 The point they are making and which you are ignoring is that they are not just a TV production company. As a public service broadcaster, they are also maintaining a radio network and education services and orchestras and so on. They are assuming (probably correctly) that no-one would pay extra subscription fees for radio stations, for example; or pay a special Proms supplement to their standard subscription service. You can disagree with the premise: these days, you could argue, all radio stations should be commercial, the Proms should pay their own way, the various BBC orchestras are an elitist waste of time.... You are free to argue for all of that, and conclude the BBC should just be a video production company. I wouldn't disagree with that proposition. But the BBC representative you're quoting is assuming the BBC as it is presently constituted, and arguing that subscriptions alone won't support it. I agree with that proposition, too! You can't just ridicule their position if you don't understand it and the premises that underlie it. You have a vision for a slimmed-down, commercial BBC; they are operating within the bloated, public-service-obligated BBC that exists now. Arguing for the transition to the one or the continuation of the other are both rational positions to hold, and reaching for the "cheap laugh" button of ridicule because you won't recognise this fact does you little credit. Personally, I'd agree with a slimmed-down commercial BBC. But someone's going to need to fund those BBC functions that are not directly related to BBC TV broadcasts, and I want some thought put into that before reaching for the machete and chopping the house down around me.

[@Asshole88]

That radio show with Russell Brand was pre-recorded, it wasn't even live.

[@Asshole88]

Why is this not monetised? No option to give thanks