State Broadcaster goes after Elderly poor

[Zambo]

Let's hope a few more follow suit. can't see scummer Lineker coughing though.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... m-75s.html

No good Tory MPs moaning. The Government shouldn’t have handed the decision over to the BBC. This was bound to happen. If they don’t reverse the decision it’s their responsibility.

It doesn't matter how many times you post it, the responsibity has been with the BBC since 2015. If someone warns you that their subsidy is going to end, and gives you five years notice, then it's up to you to find the best way of doing it. They decided to chose the worst, fucking the old folk in favour of continuing to pay their own employees obscene amounts of money.

This won't end well for them if they don't reverse the decision and quick.

[Hillman avenger]

The BBC salary bill is irrelevant to this.
The government tried to get rid of its obligations.

[Jon Gout]

Was Savile paying them to work there?

[Royal24s]

What's the difference between the government and the BBC - it's a State broadcaster.

[Zambo]

The BBC salary bill is irrelevant to this.
The government tried to get rid of its obligations.

Your persistent defence of the BBC, irrespective of what it is charged with is difficult to understand. It was agreed by the BBC and the Government back in 2015, that they could put up the licence fee, which I believe they have done twice, to help compensate for the subsidy withdrawal.

Moreover your claim that their wage bill is irrelevant to discussions about this is absurd. Cut the overpayments and waste, and leave the free licences alone. It's a valid option.

[Ralph]

Let's hope a few more follow suit. can't see scummer Lineker coughing though.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... m-75s.html

No good Tory MPs moaning. The Government shouldn’t have handed the decision over to the BBC. This was bound to happen. If they don’t reverse the decision it’s their responsibility.

It doesn't matter how many times you post it, the responsibity has been with the BBC since 2015. If someone warns you that their subsidy is going to end, and gives you five years notice, then it's up to you to find the best way of doing it. They decided to chose the worst, fucking the old folk in favour of continuing to pay their own employees obscene amounts of money.

This won't end well for them if they don't reverse the decision and quick.

The Government handed the decision to the BBC to escape criticism. Why give the BBC the power to cut free license fees for over 75s if you don’t think they should do it?

The Government could reverse the decision if they wanted to. They don’t want to. That’s why they deserve to be criticised.

This thread should be titled 'cold hearted government goes after elderly poor'.

[Jon Gout]

They'll probably decide to reverse it just before the next general election.

[Ralph]

They'll probably decide to reverse it just before the next general election.

Wouldn’t surprise me.

[Zambo]

Let's hope a few more follow suit. can't see scummer Lineker coughing though.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... m-75s.html

No good Tory MPs moaning. The Government shouldn’t have handed the decision over to the BBC. This was bound to happen. If they don’t reverse the decision it’s their responsibility.

It doesn't matter how many times you post it, the responsibity has been with the BBC since 2015. If someone warns you that their subsidy is going to end, and gives you five years notice, then it's up to you to find the best way of doing it. They decided to chose the worst, fucking the old folk in favour of continuing to pay their own employees obscene amounts of money.

This won't end well for them if they don't reverse the decision and quick.

The Government handed the decision to the BBC to escape criticism. Why give the BBC the power to cut free license fees for over 75s if you don’t think they should do it?

The Government could reverse the decision if they wanted to. They don’t want to. That’s why they deserve to be criticised.

This thread should be titled 'cold hearted government goes after elderly poor'.

Nope, the BBC is independent from state control, and is responsible for it's own actions. This decision has been made by them, and they must take responsibility for it. How it is funded and who funds it is irrelevant in this issue. It, not it's funders, have have to stand up and be counted. They didn't have to shaft the overs, there were alternatives.

[Ralph]

Let's hope a few more follow suit. can't see scummer Lineker coughing though.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... m-75s.html

No good Tory MPs moaning. The Government shouldn’t have handed the decision over to the BBC. This was bound to happen. If they don’t reverse the decision it’s their responsibility.

It doesn't matter how many times you post it, the responsibity has been with the BBC since 2015. If someone warns you that their subsidy is going to end, and gives you five years notice, then it's up to you to find the best way of doing it. They decided to chose the worst, fucking the old folk in favour of continuing to pay their own employees obscene amounts of money.

This won't end well for them if they don't reverse the decision and quick.

The Government handed the decision to the BBC to escape criticism. Why give the BBC the power to cut free license fees for over 75s if you don’t think they should do it?

The Government could reverse the decision if they wanted to. They don’t want to. That’s why they deserve to be criticised.

This thread should be titled 'cold hearted government goes after elderly poor'.

Nope, the BBC is independent from state control, and is responsible for it's own actions. This decision has been made by them, and they must take responsibility for it. How it is funded and who funds it is irrelevant in this issue. It, not it's funders, have have to stand up and be counted. They didn't have to shaft the overs, there were alternatives.

The Government should have never given the BBC the power to abolish the free television licenses. It was an absurd decision and this outcome was inevitable. Who receives a free TV license is a decision for elected politicians not a broadcaster.

The Government should reverse the decision and fund the free licenses out of general taxation.

[subsub]

Let's hope a few more follow suit. can't see scummer Lineker coughing though.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... m-75s.html

No good Tory MPs moaning. The Government shouldn’t have handed the decision over to the BBC. This was bound to happen. If they don’t reverse the decision it’s their responsibility.

It doesn't matter how many times you post it, the responsibity has been with the BBC since 2015. If someone warns you that their subsidy is going to end, and gives you five years notice, then it's up to you to find the best way of doing it. They decided to chose the worst, fucking the old folk in favour of continuing to pay their own employees obscene amounts of money.

This won't end well for them if they don't reverse the decision and quick.

Why are a tiny proportion of BBC salaries "obscene"?
Is your own salary "obscene" given what you actually do?

[Hillman avenger]

The BBC salary bill is irrelevant to this.
The government tried to get rid of its obligations.

Your persistent defence of the BBC, irrespective of what it is charged with is difficult to understand.
Not really. Our democracy is being whittled away as it is in the US and we would be far, far worse off without a large journalism and broadcasting organisation prepared to investigate and challenge. All this talk about the BBC being "the state broadcaster" could not be more wrong and is promoted by people who do not want us to see too much of reality.
Part of the BBC is entertainment and whether we like it or not it is in a competitive market for talent.As for waste, tell is what it is.

It was agreed by the BBC and the Government back in 2015, that they could put up the licence fee, which I believe they have done twice, to help compensate for the subsidy withdrawal.
It was imposed, not agreed. As was the burden of the World Service. It was Osborne playing pass the parcel.

Moreover your claim that their wage bill is irrelevant to discussions about this is absurd. Cut the overpayments and waste, and leave the free licences alone. It's a valid option.
See above. You tell me where they can find £750m

[Royal24s]

Great bit of projection there Hillman. It's not you or the BBC whittling away democracy by trying to ignore votes on BREXIT and President Trump, it's the people who got elected .

BBC entertainment is crap and I don't want to pay for it because I don't watch it, which goes for a lot of their output in fact.
How many cookery programmes and reality shows do we need ?

[Zambo]

Let's hope a few more follow suit. can't see scummer Lineker coughing though.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... m-75s.html

No good Tory MPs moaning. The Government shouldn’t have handed the decision over to the BBC. This was bound to happen. If they don’t reverse the decision it’s their responsibility.

It doesn't matter how many times you post it, the responsibity has been with the BBC since 2015. If someone warns you that their subsidy is going to end, and gives you five years notice, then it's up to you to find the best way of doing it. They decided to chose the worst, fucking the old folk in favour of continuing to pay their own employees obscene amounts of money.

This won't end well for them if they don't reverse the decision and quick.

Why are a tiny proportion of BBC salaries "obscene"?
Is your own salary "obscene" given what you actually do?

Don't you think Lineker's salary is obscene for what he does? There are a lot of people out there that could and would do his job, for a fraction of £1.7m.

[Zambo]

Let's hope a few more follow suit. can't see scummer Lineker coughing though.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... m-75s.html

No good Tory MPs moaning. The Government shouldn’t have handed the decision over to the BBC. This was bound to happen. If they don’t reverse the decision it’s their responsibility.

It doesn't matter how many times you post it, the responsibity has been with the BBC since 2015. If someone warns you that their subsidy is going to end, and gives you five years notice, then it's up to you to find the best way of doing it. They decided to chose the worst, fucking the old folk in favour of continuing to pay their own employees obscene amounts of money.

This won't end well for them if they don't reverse the decision and quick.

The Government handed the decision to the BBC to escape criticism. Why give the BBC the power to cut free license fees for over 75s if you don’t think they should do it?

The Government could reverse the decision if they wanted to. They don’t want to. That’s why they deserve to be criticised.

This thread should be titled 'cold hearted government goes after elderly poor'.

Nope, the BBC is independent from state control, and is responsible for it's own actions. This decision has been made by them, and they must take responsibility for it. How it is funded and who funds it is irrelevant in this issue. It, not it's funders, have have to stand up and be counted. They didn't have to shaft the overs, there were alternatives.

The Government should have never given the BBC the power to abolish the free television licenses. It was an absurd decision and this outcome was inevitable. Who receives a free TV license is a decision for elected politicians not a broadcaster.

The Government should reverse the decision and fund the free licenses out of general taxation.

The Government should never have given the power full stop, but that's history. They are no longer under state control and are regulated by Ofcom. Once that was announced, you can't go back and say the Government fucked up they should fund the money, it's up to the BBC to make the decision. They did, it was wrong, they need to put it right.