BBC to go ahead with over-75s licence fee changes

[Chippy_Tea]

I watch BBC breakfast in the morning and they could start saving money there two permanently on the couch, a sports presenter and a weather person, do we really need someone extra to tell us the weather in these days of smartphones and fast broadband/mobile data, why cant the person on the couch tell us, the same with sport they really do need to have a cleanout at the BBC.

it must make an extra £125m savings this year as a result of the pandemic, including the cost of delaying the over-75s change

TV licences: BBC to go ahead with over-75s licence fee changes

The BBC is to go ahead with a plan to end free TV licences for most over-75s, after a two-month delay because of the coronavirus pandemic.

That means more than three million households will be asked to start paying the £157.50 fee from 1 August.

Only those who receive the Pension Credit benefit will be exempt.

The BBC said the new scheme is "the fairest decision", but the government said it was "the wrong decision" and Age UK called it "a kick in the teeth".

Why has this decision been taken?

The controversial change was originally due to be made on 1 June, and the BBC said the delay had cost £35m a month.

The cost of continuing to provide free licences to all over-75s could have reached £1bn a year over time with an ageing population, according to the corporation.

BBC Chairman Sir David Clementi said the decision had "not been easy", but the broadcaster is under "under severe financial pressure" and a further delay would have had an impact on programmes.

The BBC has previously warned that making no changes would have led to "unprecedented closures" of services.

It has also previously said it must make an extra £125m savings this year as a result of the pandemic, including the cost of delaying the over-75s changes.

Free TV licences for the over-75s have been provided by the government since 2000, but responsibility for the provision was passed to the BBC as part of its last licence fee settlement.

 

[chillipickle]

Honestly why is there even a tv tax at all? Think we must be the only country to enforce this.
We havent watched any live tv for years, there are so many decent streaming services to choose from these days, bbc should be ashamed of the junk they charge for.
Plenty of media channels to get news updates etc etc.

To charge over 75's is a discrace imo.

 

[Benfleet Brewery]

The whole licence fee is a joke as far as I’m concerned. Did you know blind people still need one too. They just get a 50% discount. So that’s £78.75 a year for a load of **** they can’t even watch!

 

[Satellitemark]

Looks to me that the government shifted the responsibility at the last renewal of the charter, to escape taking the blame for the cuts, its strange that the government says the BBC is biased and too left leaning yet they are happy to appear on BBC TV to be interviewed yet won't go onto ITV and channel 4 news or current affairs programs, makes be think that they may have beat the BBC into being less critical or adversarial in interviews by the threat of reduced funding.

Mark

 

[Satellitemark]

Honestly why is there even a tv tax at all? Think we must be the only country to enforce this.
We havent watched any live tv for years, there are so many decent streaming services to choose from these days, bbc should be ashamed of the junk they charge for.
Plenty of media channels to get news updates etc etc.

To charge over 75's is a discrace imo.

If I remember correctly when I was in the Republic of Ireland they had the added insult that they not only had to pay a licence but the state broadcaster also showed adverts.

That's as bad as paying for a subscription TV service and still being bombarded by adverts like on Sky, talk about taking the **** !

Mark

 

[DavidHatton]

Simply for me they are outdated, University challenge & Have I got news for you are the only shows I watch and normally not at the time of broadcast.
All the cash they must have made from the syndicated shows from the 70's to the present day, will be huge, maybe they should be audited to see where they spent the money.

 

[Rodcx500z]

What a joke it really is, and charging blind people to listen to i presume the radio what a cold hearted bunch of pricks the bbc are

 

[DavidHatton]

Lineker is such an armchair social justice warrior, guess it helps ease his guilt.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...support-big-salaries-stars-like-gary-lineker/

 

[Satellitemark]

There are many things wrong with the BBC , them being held to ransom by the government every few years among them ( funding should be decided by a totally independent body ) but the alternative of losing a non commercial news and program provider leaving only commercial providers (with their own owners agenda's) is to me, to lose something valuable, the alternative would be biased news and ratings chasing sensationalist reality TV, no minority interest programs , no local news as it's not profitable.
It would be a race to the bottom.

You only have to look at the standard of TV in many other countries , even ex colonial countries, programs cut to bits to make way for adverts , the first advert break before the start credits/theme music of a program, ownership by media baron's ,biased news ( fox news)
Terrible quality of programs, lack of self made dramas /proper docs ( not **** like housewives of etc)

The BBC is flawed without a doubt, the alternative is TV hell !

Mark

 

[Satellitemark]

Linker is annoying self important ****, it's easy to take the money and then pretend you care about "fashionable issues"

Mark

 

[Galena]

Actually I think the license fee is good value, I'm not saying I agree with charging over 75's but there is a whole lot more to what the BBC produce than TV, all without adverts, some great dramas and documentaries, how many radio channels? World service and more.
Get rid of the license fee and you will have adverts on every channel, I for one will miss the BBC when it's gone!

But I do agree with some unnecessary expenses, weather I do like but do they really need to galavant all round the country to present it? How many sports presenters?

 

[DavidHatton]

There are many things wrong with the BBC , them being held to ransom by the government every few years among them ( funding should be decided by a totally independent body ) but the alternative of losing a non commercial news and program provider leaving only commercial providers (with their own owners agenda's) is to me, to lose something valuable, the alternative would be biased news and ratings chasing sensationalist reality TV, no minority interest programs , no local news as it's not profitable.
It would be a race to the bottom.

You only have to look at the standard of TV in many other countries , even ex colonial countries, programs cut to bits to make way for adverts , the first advert break before the start credits/theme music of a program, ownership by media baron's ,biased news ( fox news)
Terrible quality of programs, lack of self made dramas /proper docs ( not **** like housewives of etc)

The BBC is flawed without a doubt, the alternative is TV hell !

Mark

Totally agree with you, they have lost the plot with their charges for the over 75's not a good day for their public face.

 

[marshbrewer]

Actually I think the license fee is good value

I think it's shockingly bad value as I find nearly all of its output either objectionable or pointless.

If they moved to a subscription model, it would remove the completely immoral position if me being forced, on pain of imprisonment, to pay for something you enjoy.

I have yet to see any rational argument against it.

 

[Galena]

 

[An Ankoù]

We get all the BBC channels for nothing on Astra 2. Can't remember the last time I actually watched anything very much. The whole corporation is completely sold out. Sometimes watch "Outside Source", that's OK. The Wise One watches Andrew Marr on a Sunday and is always frustrated by how completely emasculated he is these days. I can't imagine why anyone would want to pay the license fee.

 

[Satellitemark]

Spot on and very funny too , what else could you get for under £3 a week that gives you anywhere near that amount of content.

The BBC is still the envy of the world. Try living anywhere where it's purely commercial TV Radio and internet streaming , it's not much fun if you are used to having the BBC .

I don't like them charging pensioners , but the question not being asked is why the government shifted the cost burden of providing pensioner TV licences from the state ( who they have paid into all their lives ) to the service provider.

Could you imagine the uproar if the government told sky they had to provide free TV to pensioners ?

Mark

 

[marshbrewer]

what else could you get for under £3 a week that gives you anywhere near that amount of content.

The BBC is still the envy of the world.

Then they should move to a subscription model immediately. If they are great value, and the envy of the world, then they would have no problems attracting subscribers. Those who find it's output reprehensible aren't forced to pay a TV poll tax.

Win win all round.

 

[samale]

The license fee should be optional. If you want to watch BBC then pay the fee if not you don't.

 

[Scottyburto]

I think the BBC is better as a concept than in practice. The main problem I have is that the commercial rights to their programmes are seperate to the rest of the BBC. So all the money they get from selling planet earth etc to other countries and Brit box subscriptions are separate. Surely this income could pay for the blind and over 65 nevermind 75. Where does it go?

 

[Scottyburto]

I think the BBC is better as a concept than in practice. The main problem I have is that the commercial rights to their programmes are seperate to the rest of the BBC. So all the money they get from selling planet earth etc to other countries and Brit box subscriptions are separate. Surely this income could pay for the blind and over 65 nevermind 75. Where does it go?

As someone mentioned above the historical programmes must make millions in royalties at zero cost.