TV licensing...

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 11368
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: TV licensing...

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 16 Feb 2020, 12:13pm

Hi,
https://apple.news/Amem5PqxrQGKUEwr4CNC93w
The link is restricted, so i copied them contents.

"No 10 tells BBC licence fee will be scrapped
TV channels face axe in move to subscriptions
February 16 2020, The Sunday Times
Downing Street turned on the BBC last night — vowing to scrap the television licence fee and make viewers pay a subscription. The national broadcaster could also be compelled to downsize and sell off most of its radio stations.
In a plan that would change the face of British broadcasting, senior aides to the prime minister insisted that they are “not bluffing” about changing the BBC’s funding model and “pruning” its reach into people’s homes.
The blueprint being drawn up in government will:
● Scrap the licence fee and replace it with a subscription model
● Force the BBC to sell off the vast majority of its 61 radio stations but safeguard Radio 3 and Radio 4
● Reduce the number of the corporation’s national television channels from its current 10
● Scale back the BBC website
● Invest more in the World Service
● Ban BBC stars from cashing in with lucrative second jobs.
The plan marks a further escalation of hostilities between No 10 and the corporation following speeches last week by Sir David Clementi, the BBC chairman, who launched an outspoken defence of the licence fee.
He argued that a move to a subscription model would mean a loss of earnings for the BBC that would lead to popular programmes being axed and that the introduction of Netflix-style payments could result in the loss of public service programming in a race to attract paying viewers.
Ministers are already consulting on plans to decriminalise non-payment of the licence fee from 2022 and have suggested the compulsory levy could be scrapped by 2027, when the BBC’s charter is set for renewal.
A senior source said: “We are not bluffing on the licence fee. We are having a consultation and we will whack it. It has to be a subscription model. They’ve got hundreds of radio stations, they’ve got all these TV stations and a massive website. The whole thing needs massive pruning back.
“They should have a few TV stations, a couple of radio stations and massively curtailed online presence and put more money and effort into the World Service, which is part of its core job.”
The attack on the BBC will be led by John Whittingdale, the former culture secretary who was reappointed as a minister of state in his old department on Friday.
One source described Whittingdale’s instructions from No 10 as: “Mission: attack.” Johnson’s girlfriend, Carrie Symonds, used to be Whittingdale’s special adviser.
A No 10 source said: “The PM is firmly of the view that there needs to be serious reform. He is really strident on this.”
The decision to ramp up hostilities is a high-risk move for Johnson’s team. Polls show the BBC retains high approval ratings with more than 80% of voters.
The proposal to ban outside earnings comes after Kamal Ahmed, the BBC’s editorial director of news, who earns £205,000 a year, was forced to repay £12,000 he earned from addressing an investment conference. Today it can be revealed that Ahmed gave two other speeches last year for which he was also paid.
A No 10 source suggested BBC stars making money on the side should pay the money to a charity such as Help the Aged as the BBC is threatening to cut free licences for the over-75s.
“It’s an outrage that people who make their profile at public expense should seek to give themselves further financial rewards and personal gain,” the source said. “They’re basically making their names on the taxpayer and then cashing in. The BBC should immediately halt this practice and give the money to good causes.”
Downing Street is already locked in a standoff with the BBC over its political coverage, refusing to put up ministers for Radio 4’s flagship programme, Today.
“We could very easily get to the next election and never be on Today,” a source said.
A No 10 source rejected Clementi’s claim that a subscription model would cost the BBC money: “The BBC is making a wonderful case for the importance of the BBC; if the people of this country agree, they’ll subscribe.”
Clementi is in post until next year and will stay long enough to appoint a new director-general to replace Lord (Tony) Hall. Johnson’s aides have suggested they will appoint a new chairman who will fire the new director-general if he or she is not to their taste.

Discover more from The Times
Download our app
Visit our website
Times Expert Traveller"
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.

merseymouth
Posts: 1449
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 11:16am

Re: TV licensing...

Postby merseymouth » 16 Feb 2020, 12:54pm

Hi MickF, You have a number? So now you are a "Serial Offender"! :shock: :lol:
Noticed in the paper the other day that an M.P. says that Licence dodgers should not be jailed :D , but they should be given a heavy fin :shock: :shock: :shock: .
That will make a great improvement on the P.R count, me thinks not!
When the fail to pay the fine then they will get jailed for "Non-Payment of Fines", which goes into a different column on the Statistics Sheet!
Job Done. :wink: :wink: :wink: MM

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 48146
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: TV licensing...

Postby Mick F » 16 Feb 2020, 2:09pm

merseymouth wrote:Hi MickF, You have a number? So now you are a "Serial Offender"! :shock: :lol:
................ but they don't know who we are.

It's just the address.
This place was empty for over two years when we bought it in 1997.
They weren't writing to the address back then. It's just that the BBC have farmed out the TVL fee enforcement to a private company and all they want is profits. They don't care about real facts or real people and hound the address and threaten it.

They don't know that any of their threatening letters have ever been opened or read.
Perhaps the Royal Mail are delivering because they know the address is "live" and therefore not send them back as "address unknown"?

Maybe we should start writing on the envelopes "address unknown" and posting them in a box outside the local area.
Mick F. Cornwall

User avatar
RickH
Posts: 4843
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: TV licensing...

Postby RickH » 16 Feb 2020, 2:16pm

We are having a consultation and we will whack it. It has to be a subscription model. They’ve got hundreds of radio stations, they’ve got all these TV stations and a massive website. The whole thing needs massive pruning back.


A CINO - Consultation In Name Only - as they've already decided the outcome.

If it is to be a subscription service then surely it should be up to the BBC how many channels they can afford & the scale of the website!

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17178
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: TV licensing...

Postby [XAP]Bob » 16 Feb 2020, 7:39pm

“It’s an outrage that people who make their profile at public expense should seek to give themselves further financial rewards and personal gain,” the source said. “They’re basically making their names on the taxpayer and then cashing in. The BBC should immediately halt this practice and give the money to good causes.”


No speaking engagements, journalism jobs or post ministerial directorships for politicians then.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

mercalia
Posts: 12727
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: TV licensing...

Postby mercalia » 16 Feb 2020, 9:42pm

[XAP]Bob wrote:
“It’s an outrage that people who make their profile at public expense should seek to give themselves further financial rewards and personal gain,” the source said. “They’re basically making their names on the taxpayer and then cashing in. The BBC should immediately halt this practice and give the money to good causes.”


No speaking engagements, journalism jobs or post ministerial directorships for politicians then.


+1 ( Osbourn is on the cards to lose his Evening Standard job, not as he cares as he is reeling in the cash from other jobs)

fullupandslowingdown
Posts: 442
Joined: 11 Oct 2007, 5:47pm

Re: TV licensing...

Postby fullupandslowingdown » 17 Feb 2020, 1:31am

I joked to ms that soon it will be a waste of time getting to 75 for a free licence as it's gonna be scrapped altogether. Though the way things are going, neither of us will probably see a free bus pass, I'd wager that will be become a victim of cost cutting soon enough.

Though it's always bugged me that a licence for a blind person is only 50% discounted. Why should a well off pensioner watch TV for free when a younger blind person has to pay 50% to listen to the TV?

And, and, what right at the end of the day does a 'private' broadcaster have to irradiate the inside of my home with their radiowave trickier? As far as I know, there has never been a public vote for any bbc directors or policy. If you own (voting) shares in a company you have the right to vote, and we have the right to vote for our politicians.

I think the bbc management have brought this all on themselves through years of ignoring their customers. All the scandals we have had in the last decade or so including the racism on topgear, the behaviour of Johnathon Ross, and the outrageous discrimination between older white male pay, and women's pay, let alone the jobs for the boys. Then there's the bias that has crept into new reporting.

And even their website is pants. Has anyone tried navigating it for news, other than the top stories. The bbc news is supposed to cover the world, not just the UK and popular bits around the world. Seriously try to check the news about say, latest political situation in Catalonia, or the strikes in Poland. If it's not been promoted by the bbc editors then you have to work really really hard to track down the news. Though I suppose at least it's there, hidden away somewhere, most of the time. Then there is the standard of editing. I've been following closely the covid-19 news. Consecutive news items are been published with facts and figures that don't match or follow, i.e deaths go down before going up. The first duty of an editor is check the facts, check they are consistent. Least it's free.

I do wonder though how the bbc staff and stars can be stopped from doing 'other work' once the licence fee is scrapped. So I assume that is only for the remaining few years we have the licence.

fullupandslowingdown
Posts: 442
Joined: 11 Oct 2007, 5:47pm

Re: TV licensing...

Postby fullupandslowingdown » 17 Feb 2020, 1:48am

Mick F wrote:Threatening letter No27 arrived yesterday.
It's a new one we've not had before. We've been given a serial number. :lol:

Odd one really.
IN01O0A3

Took me a while to decipher it. It's a letter I followed by an N, then zero and number 1 and letter O followed by a zero and then A3.
Seems daft! :lol:


Just retrieved the last letter I threw away from the tv licking twits. I've found 5 different reference numbers on it. including one similar to yours: IN016M. Maybe the Nottingham division of tv licking twits have more columns to fill out in their database program than the Cornwall division.

Makes me laugh, it's got a printed fake red ink rubber stamp saying "enforcement visit approved" with a printed fake blue ink pen signature. Scott somebody or other. Just thinking... It says "watch BBC programmes on iPlayer " Does that mean that if you have one of those naughty iplayer cracker apps which allow you to play iplayer downloads as and when, then you don't need a licence. Not withstanding you will instead be guilty of using an illegal program.

carpetcleaner
Posts: 355
Joined: 14 Nov 2019, 1:25pm

Re: TV licensing...

Postby carpetcleaner » 17 Feb 2020, 9:02am

I can see the left, the Guardian reading classes, going into full Brexit mode to try to save the licence fee - court cases, commentators telling us only the clever and educated should decide the matter etc.

They'll fail again.

Things won't be so bad for them after that defeat. They'll still be able to pay for their beloved BBC. But they will still be angry because the rest of us won't be.

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 48146
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: TV licensing...

Postby Mick F » 17 Feb 2020, 9:03am

It's not the Cornwall division.
Our letters come from 200miles up the road from here - Bath division.

The signatures are fakes. The people don't actually exist.
Mick F. Cornwall

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 11368
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: TV licensing...

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 17 Feb 2020, 9:13am

Hi,
Are they posted or hand-delivered, posting must be cheaper I suppose otherwise it will rely on someone driving to your house.
The problem here is that BBC licence payers Are paying for the service to seek out and destroy those tax dodgers.
If you lot of duckers and divers would just pay a license fee Then the fee might not be so high :mrgreen:
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 48146
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: TV licensing...

Postby Mick F » 17 Feb 2020, 9:28am

No-one writes these letters and no-one signs them or even looks at them. Completely automatically computer-generated.
They are untouched by human hand until I open them.

They come pre-paid 2nd class post. One or two have had fake printed-on 2nd class stamps on them complete with franking to make the envelopes seem real. :lol:

Complete and utter empty threats.
They haven't the time or the inclination to even find out if any one lives here.
Mick F. Cornwall

User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 8257
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: Cully
Contact:

Re: TV licensing...

Postby al_yrpal » 17 Feb 2020, 10:28am

Long ago before the advent of computers in the days of card indexes a collegue of mine had multiple registrations for Readers Digest. This generated tons of mail which he soaked, pulped and formed into bricks which fed his boiler providing heat for the whole house. :D

Al
Touring on a bicycle is a great way to explore and appreciate the countryside and towns you pass through. What do you do to make a difference?

carpetcleaner
Posts: 355
Joined: 14 Nov 2019, 1:25pm

Re: TV licensing...

Postby carpetcleaner » 17 Feb 2020, 1:10pm

Making the BBC a subscription service would remove the need for it to employ Capita to snoop and to send unpleasant letters, and it would lessen pressure on our court system.

I don't understand why any fan of the BBC is in favour of the licence fee. Why should they care if some people don't want to buy the BBC's products?

What difference would it make to them if some people decided not to subscribe?

We never hear Sky subscribers moaning that others choose not to subscribe to it.

I can only conclude that some BBC fans are opposed to subscription funding because they fear it would mean less money to fund the programmes they like, so they quite like the status quo where everyone is forced to chip in.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17178
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: TV licensing...

Postby [XAP]Bob » 17 Feb 2020, 1:31pm

carpetcleaner wrote:Making the BBC a subscription service would remove the need for it to employ Capita to snoop and to send unpleasant letters, and it would lessen pressure on our court system.

I don't understand why any fan of the BBC is in favour of the licence fee. Why should they care if some people don't want to buy the BBC's products?

What difference would it make to them if some people decided not to subscribe?

We never hear Sky subscribers moaning that others choose not to subscribe to it.

I can only conclude that some BBC fans are opposed to subscription funding because they fear it would mean less money to fund the programmes they like, so they quite like the status quo where everyone is forced to chip in.



Multiple differences - people wouldn't subscribe, so the content could not be produced as it is now.

So the subscription would get more expensive, and fewer people would pay....

The only way to support a public broadcaster is with public funding. Maybe it should be a 2% levy on all video subscription services? So if you pay sky or virgin £40 a month (apparently not uncommon) then you pay £8 to the BBC, another £3 from your Netflix sub etc...

BUT the BBC would have to actually be a public broadcaster, not the pseudo private broadcaster it is at the moment. High quality, unbiased (and not "balanced by having one person saying pi is 4 and a single mathematician given the same airtime"), news would be a mainstay. Whichever soap(s) they run should be at the forefront of dealing with issues of the day providing opportunities for conversation about various forms of institutional discrimination etc.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.