General Chat

Showing repeats is not squandering money.

just look at their programs over Christmas repeat repeat repeat :-(

Can you provide details of what vast amount of money has been squandered by the BBC?

Or some people :-(

Some things are just not worth the time of day.
:-(

I'm with you Foggy. :-D

I have not paid for the TV licence for a couple of years now, and I would not even give anything toward the licence if requested, not when it is disclosed about the vast amount of money that has been squandered by that organisation.

Thought it was something like that Det. But who decides who are the wealthier pensioners? I think it's a mad idea.

I agree, AnnGlos, who turns down perks offered to them? Certainly not Members of the Commons and Lords. It's usually a case of 'Don't do as I do, do as I say.' Perhaps Rollo would like us to think he is a Mirror reader, living in a pod? I don't really take notice of things like that as I live my life in the way I want to live it and I expect everyone else lives the way they want to too. :-D

I agree with you too Inspector. I've lived long enough to know pensioners who have frittered away their money and who now qualify for all sorts of benefits that most of us don't have a cat-in-hell's chance of getting.

The BBC is not the only organisation where paedophiles have worked. The majority of people who work there are not paedophiles. Last count there were 3 former employees of the BBC shown to be paedophiles - not a huge number considering how many people they employ.

The BBC are obliged to provide certain public service broadcasting - that's what the fee is meant to cover, in addition to making and buying in their own programmes.

In general the quality of BBC programmes is better than commercial channels.

Poldark's worth the money on it own. ;-)

The sad thing about means testing pensioners it favours those who have never bothered to work or who have frittered away any thing they have ever earned expecting the state to pay when they retire.

Those who have scrimped and saved for their retirement are always the ones to loose out.

Personally I would scrap it altogether. As a percentage of income raised by the government it doesn't even register as it is so small.

The problem is what to replace it with but perhaps more importantly, what to do with the database of personal info the licence register consists of and the job losses at the licensing centre.

Means testing would cost more than it saves + a proportion of pensioners would be unwilling to submit to the 'stigma'.

At the moment, the BBC is suggesting that the wealthier pensioner is 'asked' to pay/or return the cost for their license

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35397783

t will be interesting to note how many who are, at the moment, not receiving any of these 'perks', turn down the offer when it is finally made to them.

And, for goodness sake Rollo, why should you decide what we should spend our money on, or which paper we should read. those 'Old dears' (what a nasty expression, so patronising) living in £300K bungalows probably bought them when they were a lot cheaper, it is their home and they will probably not realise the money the house/bungalow is worth as it will go to the state when they eventually have to move into sheltered accommodation or residential homes. The state will get most of our money in the end so don't fret.

Well, Guinevere, I pay for my licence but I'd be happy not to do so. :-D The advert time is time to make a cuppa, go to the loo etc.

I often watch programmes on the iPad too.

I think the licence fee is a legal scam
This Government has let them get away with it for two long

How many paedos and perves have made a living on the back of money
we pay for the licence :-( :-( :-(

The BBC is the only service without adverts every 10 minutes. That makes it worth the money to me.

Oh dear, Rollo, fancy picking on DM readers and leaving out Guardian, Daily Mirror readers and others :-S

I happen to think television licences are a thing of the past - ask any young person. Also, if other countries can manage without them why can't the UK? Simply pay the next godawful entertainer £1m instead of £2m.

No one is forced to accept benefits and so-called perks. If you are in receipt of them and you don't want them then pay your bus fare and pay for your prescriptions etc. No one would deny you that pleasure.

If you bring in means testing for bus passes, how long before we see means testing for National Health Services. Down the slippery slope we'd go because I, for one, wouldn't trust any government not to carry on cutting services if it could get away with it.

I don't have a problem with those in need having free bus passes etc. I don't begrudge anyone on low incomes having these things.

All I said was that they should be means tested.

So all the old dears forking out £ 20 / month for their Daily Mail and living in £ 300 K and up bungalows cannot spring to the BBC TV fee ... of course it should be means tested. Free buspass and tv IF receiving any of housing benefit, disability benefit etc otherwise not. That would not cost much in admin charges either.

The pork barrel politics applied to the over 70s ( who mostly vote ) v those trying to get a job, home and bring up a family ( who mainly withhold their vote from our scabrous polticians ) is unedifying to say the least.

Bring back the Land Tax.

But Sheila, she is one among many and some people simply can't afford to pay for some or all of the things you mention.

The free bus pass, for instance, is something many pensioners rely on to get from A to B as they can no longer afford to keep a car or can no longer drive a car safely.

For housebound pensioners, the television is often a lifeline.

If your Mum is able and willing to pay for everything you mention then let her do so. Some can't do that.

I have worked for most of my life and, although I pay for eye tests and dental treatment, I do have a bus pass and I would never begrudge anyone who is in need the use of these 'perks' - it could be you in need next!

One of the threads on here recently made it clear that some cities have free travel in city centres for all - a great idea that would relieve congestion too.

Now I can imagine the spluttering going on over that so-called perk. :-D

Personally
I would prefer to paying some sort of fee to watch TV,

PROVIDING:
that excess adverts were removed, ie 10 minutes program, 10 minutes adverts, plus 5 or so minutes plugging future programs ........... a 1 hour BBC Silent Witness for example is padded out to best part of 2 1/2 hours...........on freeview.....

and at 78 I've had a "free" licence for a couple of years now..........

Bob