Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

BBC license fee ‘to be abolished in 2027’. What will that mean?

Well, I’m not convinced that hyperbole is going to convince the skeptical.
What hyperbole? Most of my viewing is BBC. Maybe 75%. The other 25% being Channel 4. When Ozark comes back on Netflix I’ll watch that, but currently 100% of my viewing is “terrestrial”, albeit often via catch-up. So I’d say I rely pretty heavily on the BBC for my viewing. That’s not hyperbole, it’s just the way it is.
 
What hyperbole? Most of my viewing is BBC. Maybe 75%. The other 25% being Channel 4. When Ozark comes back on Netflix I’ll watch that, but currently 100% of my viewing is “terrestrial”, albeit often via catch-up. So I’d say I rely pretty heavily on the BBC for my viewing. That’s not hyperbole, it’s just the way it is.
I’m sure that without the BBC, you’d be bereft. Not that the BBC is going anywhere, regardless. They’re not going to shut down s £5bn institution just because of a shift in funding model.
 
For their viewing needs. You know, people who have a different taste in viewing to you.
Do you mean old people?
They'll all be dead soon.

Youngsters seem to consume media via phones rather than TV's so I think it is only a matter of time before there's a lack of license payers to support the Beeb.
 
I’m sure that without the BBC, you’d be bereft. Not that the BBC is going anywhere, regardless. They’re not going to shut down s £5bn institution just because of a shift in funding model.
Yeah, people need to stop adding stuff. All I said is the majority of my viewing is BBC. I don’t support the license fee. And I don’t think the BBC will disappear either. I was just pointing out that some of us do rely heavily on the BBC, and that isn’t hyperbole.
 
Seems like the announcement are getting watered down a bit by the time they arrive.

Operation Quorn sausages.
Yeah, that’s the way it goes. The government says something. It gets reported. Radio shows have phone ins. Then it moves on to another story, then another, then it gets reported again, and so on.

Next week it’ll be another stupid place to build a bridge.
 
The BBC that employs sausage nationalising Emma Barnett and her ilk is hardly Left Wing (remember its doctoring of the footage from Orgreave) but this far right Government can't accept news reporting that doesn't toe their line at all times. The shame is that since Birt, the BBC has provided little decent viewing
 
The BBC is neither neutral nor impartial.
No, its an organ of the state.

They are, however, not that daft:

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”

(Chomsky)
 
What hyperbole? Most of my viewing is BBC. Maybe 75%. The other 25% being Channel 4. When Ozark comes back on Netflix I’ll watch that, but currently 100% of my viewing is “terrestrial”, albeit often via catch-up. So I’d say I rely pretty heavily on the BBC for my viewing. That’s not hyperbole, it’s just the way it is.
Pretty much the same here, except I subscribe to a couple of streaming services purely for the sport.

I was an early-ish adopter of subscription TV. I got Sky back in the early 1990s, when they got the Premier League. I know it's probably improved since then, but the only other thing I watched than the football was MTV. The rest of it was bilge.

I eventually got rid of Sky because it was expensive - I seem to remember I was paying about £30 a month - and I could no longer justify it.

I only watch sport on Prime - I've been unable to find anything other than perhaps Chernobyl that interests me.

Some of the stuff on Netflix looks OK but not enough to tempt me into subscribing.
 
Why? They say they cannot manage on £3.2Bn. That is a fucking travesty.

Considering this government somehow spaffed £37 billion on the track and trace app, I'm shocked that the BBC budget is so meagre in comparison.

When it comes to spending on public services, this government is all about counting pennies, but when it comes to spending on the bloated expenses of private consultancies who they are chummy with, money is suddenly no object.
 
Here we go, this would pay for it and then some


HMRC boss Jim Harra admitted last year that all the money would likely never be returned.

“We will not be able to recover it all," he told the Financial Times. "You will reach a point of diminishing returns in terms of good use of resources.

diminishing returns :thumbs:
 
Here we go, this would pay for it and then some




diminishing returns :thumbs:

I don't understand. Presumably somebody signed on the dotted line when these things were handed out, surely? Therefore making them liable for recovery. So find these folks, and squeeze.
 
Considering this government somehow spaffed £37 billion on the track and trace app, I'm shocked that the BBC budget is so meagre in comparison.

When it comes to spending on public services, this government is all about counting pennies, but when it comes to spending on the bloated expenses of private consultancies who they are chummy with, money is suddenly no object.
37 billion was the entire test & trace system bugdet, they didnt spend all that on the app, the app is just one small part of that system.
 
37 billion was the entire test & trace system bugdet, they didnt spend all that on the app, the app is just one small part of that system.
That is still shocking how it amounted to more than 10x the entire budget of the BBC.

Layers upon layers of consultancy fees and waste.
 
don't understand. Presumably somebody signed on the dotted line when these things were handed out, surely? Therefore making them liable for recovery. So find these folks, and squeeze.

I expect HMRC have pursued with the same vigour as they pursue tax evasion and avoidance (currently estimated to cost £35Bn per year). Better to pursue the benefit claimant working behind a bar or smash up public services….
 
No, its an organ of the state.

They are, however, not that daft:

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”

(Chomsky)
say what you like about the bbc but very lively debate is not something i associate with the corporation.
 
Nadine Dorries, once Johnson falls she will never be heard of again will she, apart from maybe appearing on some celeb reality tv show, this whole noise was probably just her doing her best to keep her job.
eta i see she already went on i'm a celebrity get me out of here, and was the first to be voted off.
 
Last edited:
Nadine Dorries, once Johnson falls she will never be heard of again will she, apart from maybe appearing on some celeb reality tv show, this whole noise was probably just her doing her best to keep her job.
this whole thing was to let people know she exists
 
it did cause me to have a read about her just now, how she voted against gay marriage and attempted to get the abortion time limits reduced, and how her novels (which look like knockofff mills and boons) are completely free on amazon most likely because nobody would pay to read them.
 
Back
Top Bottom