´óÏó´«Ã½

SUCH IRONY

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ are doing their best to drive anyone with more than three working brain cells away. How ironic to end up notionally paying for 'viewers' who don't watch!

How many over 75's getting a 'free' TV licence are actually living on their own and how many are living with family who, without having grandma or granddad living with them would normally be paying for their licence?

Perhaps if the latter families had to pay then the cost would come down.

As it was a Government decision to give the over 75's free licences then the cost should come from general taxation.

..... and Utility companies ought to give their elderly customers the Winter Fuel payment at source.

3.

yes. why should the taxpayer subsidise foreign multinationals. however given the weakness of the regulator that cost will be passed directly onto us.


as for bbc. looks like some talent will be downsizing? or going into the commercial media where no doubt, as they keep telling us, they can double or triple their salaries?

A few things that are important to get across:

* This is an attack on benefits for old people. The government wanted to find cuts, but are trying to shift the blame onto someone else. The government knew the ´óÏó´«Ã½ were unable to fund this.
* As above, this is a direct reversal of David Cameron's pledge to protect benefits for the elderly.
* This is an attack on the ´óÏó´«Ã½, by factions within the government. They want to force through a 26% cut on the sly.

Written in the past tense; the above should be the ´óÏó´«Ã½ PR line. The headline of your article should change to, "Government axes pensioners' free TV licenses".

Instead of taking several millions out of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ budget to pay for ´óÏó´«Ã½ World Service and free TV licences for pensioners why not axe a useless
FCO-sponsored quango like British Council whose latest contribution to
'soft diplomacy' is (grotesque) support for a fashion show promoted by
the daughter of the Uzbekh dictator! Surely 'an open, outward-facing nation' like Britain 'whose political, economic and cultural authority far exceeds our size' needs the ´óÏó´«Ã½ more than it needs British Council?

If banks paying high salaries and bonuses are to be penalised, why not the ´óÏó´«Ã½ ? The amounts paid to some presenters and so-called celebrities are obscene. And why should I have to pay for the mostly dumbed-down trash and left-wing bias spewed out by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ ?
Excellent idea to fine the ´óÏó´«Ã½ £500m.
Next step is to scrap the licence fee and let the ´óÏó´«Ã½ survive in the market.
Well done to Jeremy Hunt , but he must go further.

I hope that the government reconsiders the wisdom of this policy. I would much rather pay a bit more in the fee or in tax so that pensioners could enjoy this small, but important, benefit. It is interesting to find the axe falling on benefits for the unemployed, university students, and pensioners without much pain directed at the most well off. This cannot be right.

I think someone is putting the cart before the horse. If the government chooses to exempt certain parties from paying the TV Licence Fee that is a matter for the government and so they should pay; not the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

Mind you, I am advised by a friend of Boris that Jeremy is not short of a bob or two: perhaps the pair could make a contribution out of their generous compensation.

Alternatively I look forward to episodes of Celebrity Incontinence.

today I have to get my TV Licence and it is not cheap but it is one of the most value for money expenses I have to endure, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is one of those luxuries you don't miss until you don't have it. The rest of the world envies us for our beloved ´óÏó´«Ã½, and you can trust the ´óÏó´«Ã½, how many other world broadcasters can you say that about? Documetaries, regional output, sport and Newsnight, what is there not to like about an institution like the beeb. To keep cricket on free to view, Champions league football I would have paid more to ensure those sports are there for younger generations as cricket as gone down since it became the preserve of minority channels, it is the cheapest and best thing yopu will buy all year////

We're all spending! We're all trying to get it back on track! When does it stop?!?

I've written about in a positive light - here's hoping the drops in the ocean are raising the water level. Oh wait! No - the ice caps!

I'm not sure of anything any more!

Stevie 1.26
That's fine if you are happy to pay for it. But why should those of us who loathe everything the ´óÏó´«Ã½ stands for have to finance it ? Doesn't seem fair to me. Why shouldn't it be a subscription channel so those who want it, pay for it ?

This is surely one benefit (along with free bus travel for those yet to retire) which should never have been introduced? Watching the TV is not a right and it comes as a package - to watch it you have to have a licence, in the same way to drive a car you have to have a licence, insurance, road tax, mot.If you can't afford the licence, you can't watch a TV - what next, providing the TV set too? This benefit may be excused if the over 75 is living by themselves but should not be provided if they are living with others.

Nobody in any walk of life welcomes the jolt of a drop to their income. However when it happens most people try to adjust and to focus on their priorities and to look for savings where they can. I really don't see why the ´óÏó´«Ã½ should be immune from the disciplines of belt-tightening facing the rest of us or to seek to use your power to engage in special pleading in your own interest.

'This will be very awkward for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ politically. What is more popular - high salaries for ´óÏó´«Ã½ stars and senior execitives, or free TV licences for the elderly?

Rather depends who one thinks one's audience is, 'internal' or external. Which has been an issue of late. Ask Helen Boaden.

But I do note proof-readers and/or sub-editors are early victims of the cuts.

Anyway, as suggested there could be some mileage, airtime-filling wise, with doing a 'cuts' special, only without that expensive leaving the building and interviewing a moppet a day whose local whatever is under threat. Now the ´óÏó´«Ã½ can come to appreciate it's not quite so easy when the cookie jar is bare, and everyone who liked you for the endless cookies is still hungry for more...

MON - ´óÏó´«Ã½ Breakfast - 'But what about Chris' cakes???!' wails Mr. Moyles' generous R1 producer/boss.

TUE - R4 Today Show - 'How do I get to Cancun?' a clearly distraught enviro section, plus WAGs, decry as winter closes in.

WED - Online - 'Sadly the next round of licence feepayer-funded Twitter training may have to be on their own dollar' says Head of Editorial, bemused by most editors still punting out rather non-impartial tweets.

...etc

Answers, actually not forthcoming, or even on a postcard... here:

/blogs/aboutthebbc/2010/10/new-bbc-editorial-guidelines-l.shtml

ps: Do any of your 'sources' ever go on record? Even at the ´óÏó´«Ã½. Or do we just take your word on it all?

You only have to look at ConservativeHome (the website for Tory activists) to see the ideological hatred there for the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

Add to that the requirement to persecute the ´óÏó´«Ã½ in order to keep Mr Murdoch on board.

It's sad, but I'm not surprised. These are probably only the opening shots.

PS I consider the ´óÏó´«Ã½ licence fee very good value for money.

Donald 5.20

No-one is forced, on pain of imprisonment, to pay for Murdoch's media empire, but we are forced to pay for the ´óÏó´«Ã½. Is that fair ?

Donald,
PS. You only have to watch or listen to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to realise their "ideological hatred". Imagine how you would feel if you had to pay for "ConservativeHome" !

QUOTE: * why should I have to pay for the mostly dumbed-down trash and left-wing bias spewed out by the ´óÏó´«Ã½?
*fine the ´óÏó´«Ã½ £500m
* Next step is to scrap the licence fee
* Well done to Jeremy Hunt, he must go further. UNQUOTE
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------


Isatou (7,12,17,18),

Is a typical ConservativeHome poster; the first of many on here, no doubt. It's ideological hatred, nothing to do with helping with the UKs structural deficit. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ are viewed as an enemy that needs to be destroyed. Watch out - they have their gun sights on a whole lot of other national institutions.

God help us!

The Government (The CONDEMS) continue with their despotic take on democracy in which power translates to authority and assertion. Their simplistic style of domineering negotiations with choices of restrictive alternatives, structured around their understanding of commercial terms, limits their credibility.
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ world service is not in competition with any other media; it is a unique, non-political, champion that provides genuine insight into the world opinion of the British.
The service over many years has established an accessibly safe and authentic resource of opportunity for ´óÏó´«Ã½ correspondents; In the name of freedom, it deserves a public and unrestricted support.
Relating this to an either or choice of over 75s licence fees is nonsense and has no connective reasoning. Let each public service department create their own budget concoction around their own operational costs rather than raiding the resources of a unique public institution.

19. At 6:47pm on 19 Oct 2010, Donald Rockhopper

God help us!

Who is 'us'?

Not really expecting an answer, as these so far seem not to be forthcoming in favour of tribal rallying cries.

Many, many people object to be forced to pay tax on pain of imprisonment and be subjected to a highly biased output.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is 'supposed to be impartial' it is obvious to all but the blind that it is not. - Even many of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ staff have given up the pretense of non bias.

@19 I guess you would not wish to be forced to pay for the Daily Mail.