SAVE THE BBC?

BBC 3

Davina McCall* is urging people on Twitter to sign a petition to Boris Johnson to stop persecuting the BBC, although I suspect that it’s Dom Cummings who is behind it the plan to sell off both Channel Four and the BBC.

The comments on her post are interesting. Let’s say she’s not having much luck.

One of the reasons people cite is the fabulously high salaries paid to presenters from the licence fees. Of course, that is just the presenters… and that is just salaries.

BBC1
A little out of date, but you can bet they didn’t go down in the interim…

There are also a wagon or two load of management types on salaries that would make your eyes water and your wallets bulge, but who also seem to feel that their bottoms are simply too precious to risk sitting on seats that the ordinary people might have sat on… and so they have chauffeur-driven limos, or private hire cars to take them from London to Manchester or Cardiff. And, when for some inexplicable reason, they are obliged to go to New York, they avail themselves of first-class seats at our expense.

Image result for old tv setrs

I’ve never been a tv watcher. Not when I was a kid; not when I was a teen, and not as an adult. Indeed for a long time, I didn’t even have a tv set in the house. Then eleven years ago, I had an op which needed some recovery time and my mum bought me a tv, which I didn’t really want.

I watched a bit of tv out of boredom and found most of it turgid. Indeed, one night I flicked through literally dozens of channels trying to find something to divert me, and the best I could find was the turgid “On the busses”.

But as my friend, Danny, so well known on the blog as our voice on America, will tell you, I did kinda get hooked on box sets of trashy tv detective stories like “Murder She Wrote”!

Image result for murder she wrote

Ye gads, how we laughed about it.

Anyway, after a couple of months I was in fine fettle and back to doing all the things I’d done before (like mainly running after Munguin). And Munguin employed me to write this blog.

The tv was forgotten and my life began over again.

In 2013 (I think), I heard, through reading blogs, the kind of nonsense the BBC was churning out about the independence debate, and I thought “not on my money, mate”. I cancelled my licence and removed the ariel leads from the set. (To begin with, I got letters, then visits from Crapita, but they eventually gave up after I explained in English … then, fearing they had not understood, French, and finally in Gaelic, that I HAVE NO TV. “Je n’ai pas de télévision” and “Chan eil telebhisean agam” if you ever need it…)

Image result for tv l;icence letter

They sent people around to the house and I told them to go away… or something like that. Eventually, they got sick of me and gave up, or more likely lost my files.

I’ll never pay a tv licence to the BBC again.

I’m not saying I would never watch a BBC programme because I’m sure that there are some decent ones, but it would be so rare that it would work out extremely expensive.

I’d be interested to know how you feel about:

The BBC in general;

Paying the licence fee as an obligation, regardless of how little of the BBC’s output you consume;

Mr Cummings’ proposals to scrap the licence and make it pay to view.

*I had absolutely no idea who she was, but someone informed me she used to interview people as they were thrown off some tv show.  Nice job…

82 thoughts on “SAVE THE BBC?”

  1. I read that Angela Lansbury (AKA Jessica Fletcher) spends time at her home in Ireland. I wonder how the Irish feel about the spike in the murder rate. People drop like flies around her. 😉

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Whatever the current occupants of No 10 want…
    I’m not in the least suspicious of their motives.
    Boris is a man full of great ideas.
    50p per day for access to BBC is a scandal…I could buy a red top newspaper for that.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. A rant about the License Fee:

    The wording of that letter is truly outrageous. Clearly the creation of a totalitarian state that is out of control. If I understand it correctly, it says that a representative of a private entity that enforces a government tax can enter your home (“investigate your premises”) to find out if you’re watching live television. They do this without a court order? Really? And to what extent is such a system most likely supported by manifold methods of secret electronic surveillance? How they know if you only watch tax-free RECORDED content, or if you are watching LIVE TV on a mobile phone that’s subject to tax, infers a system of domestic surveillance that seems straight out of Stalinist Russia (not to put too fine a point on it.) 😉

    On the face of it, I’d say that it reinforces my support of the original intent of the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms amendment) to the American constitution. Namely, as something to insure that the British will never come back to our shores. I’m not even a gun nut, but I do have a shotgun, a rifle, and a 38 caliber pistol……about what the average American home has I’d say. So if a Brit ever comes to the door demanding to know if I’m watching television, suffice it to say I can lay down a pretty heavy field of fire.

    Anyway, I did a little historical research, and was dismayed to learn that selling off the BBC, destroying their facilities and buildings, and sowing their ground with salt, will likely NOT get rid of the TV License Fee.

    I had assumed that the Broadcast License began with television, and (from an American perspective) reflected a strange British aversion to a commercial model to pay the bills for television production and broadcasting. Turns out that the broadcast receiving license began with the General Post Office and the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1904, permitting receipt of “experimental” radio transmissions. Wiki says that the British Broadcasting COMPANY was established in October 1922 by a group of radio manufacturers to produce radio programs for the users of their products. Initially these broadcasts were funded by the sale of radio receiving sets, and carried sponsored programs.

    So even though there were commercially sponsored radio programs as early as 1922, the Post Office wasn’t going to allow such an abomination to go on for very long. Wiki: “With the forming of the public British Broadcasting CORPORATION in 1927, the Post Office dedicated nearly the entirety of licence fee income to the funding of the BBC.”

    SO……even though they had a chance to trash their broadcasting system (as the Americans did) with commercial content at least as early as 1922, the Brits (or at least their representatives in Parliament) opted for a licensing fee that it turns out would go on forever, even after commercial broadcasting showed up.

    I see that in 1991 the government turned over enforcement of the fee to the BBC itself, and in 2006, the government gave up all pretense of the license fee being a service charge for commercial-free BBC content. Wiki: “Explaining the change, the Office for National Statistics said: “In line with the definition of a tax, the licence fee is a compulsory payment which is NOT paid solely for access to BBC services. A licence is required to receive ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, satellite, or cable”. A briefing paper from the House of Commons Library described the licence fee as a hypothecated tax (i.e. one raised for a particular defined purpose.)”

    Exactly why the UK government feels justified in charging a tax for the people of the UK to use the television receivers they buy with their own funds to receive live broadcast signals from privately owned commercial television channels is truly a mystery. Surely an example of British governmental overreach on a grand scale which should be unconstitutional……….no wait…….

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Its called state propaganda Danny and has been the sole purpose of the BBC since the General Strike of 1929 – someone has to pay for it and that’s not going to happen on a voluntary basis.

      If you doubt what I say then consider the fact that the “BBC World Service” was run directly from the Foreign Office, not from the BBC. Also its compulsory to be vetted by MI5 before you’re granted any sort of position where you’d be in a position to broadcast live.

      I’ll dance on the grave of the BBC when its gone – its been a malign, evil organisation for the entirety of its history.

      Liked by 4 people

        1. Yes, recent(ish) releases of govt papers under the 30-year rule show that dozens of individuals were barred from live broadcasting (but still employed for recorded stuff) due to “security concerns” throughout the 1980s. The BBC has refused to say if this still goes on (after initially denying it ever happened) but who’d believe them on anything now?

          Got to stick to the state propaganda line after all. Can’t have “one of them” being in a position that matters….

          Liked by 1 person

            1. He was “one of us” in their terms. Ra ra rule britannia, god save the queen & down with everyone who isn’t wite, english & protestant.

              Besides which – they could be sure he wouldn’t “blot his copybook” because if he did then he’d be going to prison for raping children. They knew all along about Saville & his radio 1/TOTP child-raping buddies, its utterly risible to think they didn’t.

              Liked by 2 people

              1. In the same vein, I see that Ming Campbell is threatening to resign if they push David Steele out of the party for not snitching on that bloke that notoriously was a paedophile… big guy, northern. I forget his name.

                Who would be so stupid as to pin his reputation to THAT?

                Liked by 1 person

                1. Cyril Smith is who you’re thinking of.

                  Hard to reach any other conclusion than raping children seems to be very prevalent amongst the ranks of the “great and the good” and they’re all covering it up.

                  Liked by 2 people

      1. Vestas…..I’d say you have it right about the BBC.
        As for American government broadcasting, I always get the Voice of America (VOA) mixed up with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). They were very big in the propaganda biz back in the Cold War era of course, and are still operating. Radio Free Europe was founded as a private organization, but was in reality a CIA front organization, and received covert funding from the CIA until 1972. It’s editorial content was a joint effort between the CIA and the American State Department. Today, both the VOA and RFE are funded by Congress. At times, the VOA has been a State Department propaganda outlet, but claims to currently be largely independent of government editorial control.

        Liked by 2 people

    2. LOL.

      As I understand it, Danny, the letter you see would be valid in England and Wales, but not so in Scotland or NI.

      I was within my legal rights in Scotland to refuse these people admission. As I had nothing to hide, I would have let the person in, had he been polite. (It’s not his fault. He’s a lowly paid functionary just doing his job. Why would I make his like harder?) But the guy was rude and so I was too.

      I agree with the rest, although I draw the line at shooting them…

      Liked by 2 people

      1. No they have no right of entry in E&W either.

        In fact you have more rights in E&W as once you revoke their implied right to access the property in writing (ie the right to knock on your door) they are committing the (criminal) offence of aggravated trespass. If the police decline to act you have deep pockets you can also privately prosecute Crapita – unlike Scotland this doesn’t require permission from the Procurator Fiscal to proceed. In Scotland you can only report them for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace which the police will totally ignore.

        Liked by 3 people

          1. If you search online you’ll find the relevant letter template to revoke their implied access. I’d strongly urge you and anyone else who has cancelled the tax to send the letter.

            The reasoning is that should they decide to take you to court without evidence (happens all the time) then you have a defence the court will be compelled to hear – ie trespass etc.

            You should note that (like council tax) TV licence “evaders” are initially dealt with in a block hearing – ie there could be hundreds of defendants in that hearing, none of whom will be guaranteed access to the court. The magistrate (in E&W, sherriff in Scotland?) will simply accept the evidence Crapita present WITHOUT QUESTION, whether it exists in individual cases or not. I’m not exaggerating either – that’s the way it works week in week out.

            The only time you’ll be guaranteed an individual hearing is if its for non-payment of the fine (prison sentence) or if you can show that an offence was committed by Crapita during their “investigation”.

            Liked by 3 people

      2. Tris……I agree with your approach regarding the right of entry issue. All things being equal, I’d say that it’s probably best to avoid gunplay.

        On the other hand, if breach of the peace is a relevant legal issue in any jurisdiction, I imagine that gunfire would fill the bill, in terms of elevating the situation to a police matter that would draw the attention of an actual court of law. 😉

        There’s an old American saying: You can get more with a kind word………AND a gun, than with a kind word alone.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. The “enforcement” letters all read like a scam to me. Big red scary text, overblown warnings, lying about what they will do if you don’t pay… They’re designed to make you panic, and pay out without thinking.

    They remind me of the low-lifes who blackmail people by claiming to have dodgy photos of them.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Illy……I really was amazed how that letter read. Particularly since….(as I understand it)…….the government had handed off the license fee enforcement to the BBC, which proceeded to contract it out to a private company.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. I got an invitation from Change.org to sign the petition to save the EBC, I put it in the trash bin and would put the EBC in the same place but I only get it emptied once every THREE weeks.
    Yes all of their employees are vetted by the security services, they do interview for employment all sorts of humans BUTT if there’s a wee upside down xmas tree drawn on the file, well it’s a no.
    From your listing of salaries to the so called stars, that means 80,000 ordinary TV licences have to be collected to pay for them alone, add in 160,000 licences for Capita for the collection, that’s over a quarter of a Million licences.
    I remember a friend who lived in a village up Loch Long who couldn’t receive Off Air transmissions so had to install a satellite dish telling of the visit from the heavy squad, didn’t matter to them he couldn’t get a signal from the transmitter, he was needing a license to operate his tv, end of story.
    They used to have detector vans that could pick up some of the screen scanning signal from the street but now with LED screens that method is no longer available to them so they use the heavy abusive letter technique triggered from their use of databases and the idea that every address has a TV therefore every address needs a TV license. A computer monitor is the same basic screen system as are mobile phones, no measurable emissions other than light.
    A hotel with 100 rooms only needs ONE license and the prisons are exempt as are any government buildings. They got rid of the radio license fee a long time ago.
    As for the output try last xmas season, mainly repeats of programmes from the 70’s and 80’s, as the EBC put it ‘Our consumers LIKE the old stuff’, All been paid for in the past and most of the presenters well in their box.
    In an aircraft we have to pay Ofcom a fee to use a safety device, a communications radio license is required if you have a radio installed, this includes the transponder which gives your position to the Air traffic service.
    They had a lot of trouble with the use of CB radio without a license, so much that they just ignore it now.
    My brother watches old stuff and doesn’t watch EBC live as even he notices the spin, he’s about to lose his free license in May.
    I say to him that he’ll get much better treatment in the local prison than he gets just now, nice warm bed, 3 meals a day, all the tv he can stand and a friendly member of staff to tuck him in at night saving him the cost of the home help. It’s a no brainer except he may have to wait for a place as the prison is a bit short of spaces. He might be dead before his cell is available for occupation.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. It’s their idiotic assumptions that if you have an address you have to have a tv licence that gets me.

      I doubt they do that now though. I mean young people don’t buy tvs.

      Why would they?

      They days of tv are moving to their close.

      Like

    2. The detection method wasn’t anything to do with the screen (CRT), they used to detect the Intermediate Frequency in use (actually the local oscillator frequency) which in turn told them which channel you were viewing.

      However there haven’t been ANY detection vans in use since the 1970s as they cost too much and were far too obvious. They also were completely incapable of anything other than the crudest direction-finding so didn’t work with flats and really only worked on semi-detached/detached housing.

      Current flat panel TVs (with inbuilt tuner) are still detectable using that method but as said there’s no detection.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. In theory the detector vans could work, but in reality the then GPO had vans that were mocked up to look scary and intimidating but didn’t have all the expensive gubbins in them to actually detect anything at all. The tactic then was to get an announcement in the local press that they were going to target the area, wait on people panicking and rushing out to buy a license, then send round a fleet of mock vans to do a bit of high profile touring of the streets for a few days. If they caught a few souls who admitted they hadn’t had a licence they’d prosecute just for the publicity and to show they meant business.
        I remember ( in the 60’s) my mum got a detector van pull up outside the house followed by a knock at the door. She let them in and showed them her licence. Then when she saw them looking about the living room for the tv she told them she didn’t have one. Sheepishly they left but not before my mother told what she thought about their nonsense and their ridiculous story about picking up a signal in their van. Truth is, she did have a licence and no telly. In those days we rented the telly and had just moved house and hadn’t yet set up a contract with the Radio Rentals/Rediffusion mob.

        Like

        1. Aye but the tenements in Glasgow for example were pretty much immune to detection from day one.

          The LO signal got heavily attenuated by the sandstone walls so what signal was detectable outside came via doors and windows with all the issues that brings. The vans also had no vertical discrimination so they couldn’t tell which floor the signal came from with any accuracy.

          Liked by 1 person

  6. As far as I know,the BBC isn’t directly funded by the TV tax any more than roads are funded directly from the Vehicle tax.
    It all disappears into the vaults of the London treasury and funds are then allocated by the politician of the day.
    The BBC is a political organ of state whose main value is to promote Britishness throughout the various nations that make up the UK state i.e. No to independence from London control.
    However,now that almost all of the MSM is owned by right wing Tory supporting billionaires,there is no real benefit in having the state overlapping the propaganda messaging system.
    The BBC is now redundant internally and Britishness is no longer seen in the same way internationally,so no more bangs for your state bucks.
    It has to go.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. So I can take it that from the 1st, June this year I will be receiving an extortion demand from an organisation dedicated to stopping my “raison d’etre”, Scottish Independence. To put it mildly, they can go and get stuffed.
    I wonder how many of the alleged 3.7m supposed to pay will actually cough up? And how many of those are in Scotland?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Alex
      Surprised you’ve not already had the notification from the TV License people.
      My brother got his at xmas time, merry xmas, here’s your tax demand for £150 or so quid, it’s a criminal offence and you may be jailed if you don’t pay up.
      But of course you can pay monthly or quarterly if you can’t afford it all in one payment.
      This along with his ‘Heating’ allowance and his xmas bonus from a grateful country of £10, just enough to buy a loaf of bread, well that was 10 days covered of the year.
      You couldn’t make it up, he pays tax on his small company pension and they whip away his tax free allowance from his state pension as you all know it is a tax free benefit now and not the payment from an Insurance Policy aka National Insurance.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Scrap the licence fee, let the so-called BritishBC fight it out in the marketplace with the rest. They can’t be worried about losing talent if the wages get cut, little talent on display. Thing should be half price anyway as half the programming is repeats.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. I am led to believe, if capita arrive at your door here in Scotland and demand money they are committing a criminal offence. ie demanding money with menaces.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. I can’t and wouldn’t argue against any of the points made previously. I don’t like or trust the BBC, nor do I think the license fee is just. It’s always been too cosy, corrupt and establishment. Then of course we get to the propaganda. Not only the pro British but the anti Scottish independence. It’s always been very sinister and very wrong, the irony being that as a country we have a license fee system where we pay up front for it.

    The problem I have is the same one alluded to by Jake earlier on and that is the distrust I have of the British governments motives.

    No, I don’t like the BBC nor do I trust it but I like and trust this right wing Tory government even less and that puts me in opposition to almost anything they propose. We can celebrate the demise of the BBC as much as we like and I would freely admit to some major GIRUY. The certainty exists in my mind though that the gangsters in charge in London do not have our interests at heart and are not doing this for our benefit. This begs the question, why are they doing it, how much does it benefit them and how much to our detriment will it prove to be in the future?

    I would imagine Rupert Murdoch for one, will not be sad.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Fair points.

      My real objection is that I can’t watch ITV3, which would be diverting, with reruns of Vera, Poirot, Marple, Midsommer, etc.

      Also the National Geographic and several others do have some good programmes.

      But I can’t watch them unless I subsidise the BBC.

      That’s like saying … you can’t read the National unless you pay money to the Daily Mail.

      Incidentally, the Daily Mail English edition reports today that the UK government has come up with a scheme to do something about the long waiting lists…

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8035757/Nurses-trained-perform-surgery-radical-plan-slash-NHS-waiting-times.html

      Like

    2. I certainly don’t trust this Government or their motives. I’m not at all happy about a subscription service as a replacement for the licence fee. To me it’s the thin end of a potentially very thick wedge. What next? Subscription fees for access to GP’s ? Subscription fees for access to basic education? These bastards will privatise anything and everything they can. Nor do I believe that a subscription model will result in cheaper access to TV and Radio… the subscription services that already exist aren’t cheap. What even holds them at current levels though is that they need to be competitive with the £12 a month licence fee.
      That’s not to say the BBC doesn’t need reform… it needs to get a grip on the salaries it pays itself and the chosen few and it needs to do much much better in distancing itself from government but I don’t see how just turning it into a SKY or a FOX is going to achieve that.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It would be ok, Jake as long as I didn’t have to pay for it. Surely in this day and age they could say, yes, you can watch commercial tv, and your aerial won’t pick up BBC channels.

        Also, why do they have so many channels?

        Like

        1. I suppose it all depends on whether or not we feel there is any “common good” in there being a public service broadcaster.
          We all, mostly, agree that education is a “common good” and we all pay for it whether we have children or not, whether these children are in education or not. We all mostly agree that that having a fire and rescue service is a common good and we pay for it out of taxation, not by subscription with an opt-out. I’ve never used the Skye Bridge or the new Forth Bridge for that matter yet they’re paid for out of common taxation not just by those who use it.
          Personally, I think the current licence system is out of date and no longer justified or sustainable. It’s difficult to collect and open to evasion and abuse. It’s also nothing more than a regressive tax.
          I’d pay for the BBC by making the other broadcasters pay a levy.

          Liked by 1 person

    3. > why are they doing it, how much does it benefit them

      Pretty sure they’ve already written off Scotland when it comes to the BBC, this feels more like a move to silence anything that claims to be “balanced” in regards to English news.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. My only contact with the BBC is that sometimes I listen to the Today programme for a while in the morning. It is completely English. The only time I hear anything about Scotland is when they can find something to criticise.

        Like

  11. Yes and IF they’re no busy they could sweep the floors and make the meals and run the appointments service.
    They could take you into their homes and save the bother of both going to the hospital, save on the bedding.
    I’mso glad we have paid for this bestest yet government.
    The nurses will just have to get on with it as we won’t be having any of them from furreign parts.
    In the meantime, doris , the King Canute, has been stopping the flooded rivers from going into the basements of houses in englandland, all done from the grace and favour house out in the country.
    Wonder how the Mr doctors are going to take to that idea, instead of them getting the pay for the surgery the nurses will do it at a quarter of the salary.
    The big boys are only amateurs, they’re only practicing.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Trust Mr Hand-cock to come up with that. The Cleaners and Porters will presumably have to become nurses…

      I guess OAPs will have to do the cleaning for their pensions.

      Like

  12. Tris
    I do sadly pay the license tax as I have a wife and kids who do watch tv. I don’t watch a lot of tv but I do watch some, very little BBC to be fair other than Master Chef and Doctor Who, occasional documentary but my problem with the BBC is the overall quality of product, mainly the bias and the mind numbing crap they also show. If they stuck to educational programmes, documentaries etc I would have less of an issue. But they spend millions on football in England but no where else, that’s a problem for me as they should not get away with that at all. Their current affairs and news are a disgrace, no sense of impartiality at all and very rarely represent all opinions. Things like Eastenders and River City are a joke and should be left to the commercial broadcasters, reality shows in the main I think are really poor but master chef is decent. I would do away with chat shows and all that guff. Basically they should stick to children’s programming and educational programming, news and current affairs should be totally revamped (of course it won’t). BBC Scotland was always set up to fail and the Nine is shocking but not as shocking as the main news while debate night is not all bad and certainly better than QT in every respect.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Wife (English) pays our license. She isn’t quite there yet in terms of disbelief.

      Only thing I’ve watched in the last 5 years is sporadic episodes of Mastermind on their catchup service – which I note requires an account these days. Gave up that after the senile old gammon (working for Murdoch now) who presents it heard the tiebreaker answer wrong last year and wouldn’t admit it.

      I’m BBC-free. Totally BBC-free and there’s zero that I’d miss 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

    2. I noticed, Bruce, that we have Radio Scotland and in England it seems most counties have their own radio stations.

      I can’t imagine why there are so many stations. Scotland seems to manage with just one for the whole country.

      I saw too that QT INVITED a member of the National Front to the last QT broadcast and put her up in an hotel. Additionally they put her in the front row. Maybe someone can confirm or refute that.

      So, part of your licence fee went to pay for that.

      I’d say tv wise, you should be able to opt out of it; one children’s channel and one adult channel max.

      I don’t think there’s much point in having BBC Scotland, as not many people watch it, but I suppose you have to keep the Brits among us happy.

      If they don’t scrap teh corporation, it has to be massively reformed and downsized, and the executives need to learn how to fit their fat arses on to a train seat.

      Like

      1. Have you googled “UK democracy reporters funded by BBC”?

        I think people should know their license fee (tax) subsidises media companies like the Daily Mail.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. Stopped paying the TV tax in 2014, lots of letters from them – must be costing them a fortune. No visits, which is a pity as i’ve swatted up on how to deal with them. Blood pressure down as i dont watch Question Time from middle-class Tory voting Dundee !!!! and have lots of time to read books, enjoy the multitude of excellent indy blogs and lead a free thinking, educated and eclectic life. All thanks to the BBC lol.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Tonight on R4.
    A serious programme on the health service, in particular Sepsis.
    How can you decode this statement from a ‘professional journalist’?
    The death rate in englandland is 53,000 a year.
    The death rate for RUK is similar.
    Actual statements from the programme.
    So what does it mean?
    The total for englandland is 53,000 and the total for RUK is the same number, this is none sense as it implies Scotland, NI and Wales have ZERO deaths from Sepsisor you could assume they have 53,000 deaths as well.
    The casual use of englandland and RUK is endemic.
    The statistician had a good go at the media implying the death rate for children was out of control, in fact she stated only 0.3% of deaths due to sepsis in englandland were children under 12 years old.
    The majority were aged over 65 years old, around 75% but figures were poor.
    The media have been helped by the subject being used to kill off actors in soap operas as the latest fashion.
    You can trust the EBC, aye right.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. There is a perfectly legal way not to pay. You just tell them. After 2014 I decided we were not going to pay or watch the crap again. It took a few months to wean off the TV, but eventually it was out of our lives. I then declined to renew the license and filled in the online form telling then – true – that I did not watch “live” TV. I detuned one TV, got a monitor instead for the spare room one, and removed the connection to the aerial and just got on with life. At that time I used to buy a lot of DVDs. I particularly like Scandi noir box sets and French and German movies. Most of which were never screened on the idiot box anyway. Oh, and American Sitcoms, which were once awfull, but which they have become very very good at in the new cable/ netfix/ HBO era. I eventually got an Amazon Prime account ( for Outlander! ) , and watch very occasionally a series on there. But we have not looked back. We go to hotels and don’t even switch it on. We dont miss it at all. We watch very few programs now even on Prime ( but get goods orders delivered free instead). Every 2 years we fill in the same form and TV licencing don’t bother us.

    Now as to their content. I resent being asked to register for BBC sounds – and have not done so. I did used to listen to particularly politics and comedy stuff on R4. Now I don’t bother with anything except the Now Show/ News Quiz. In Our Time and on R Scotland Breaking The News and Off The Ball. I cannot stand to routinely listen to R4 any more, especially anything political as I just end up shouting at the radio. I only listen to those 2 programs now on R Scotland. I tune to Celtic Music Radio in my car and on my IPad.

    I don’t watch anything on Catch Up. I would remove the iPlayer software from my DVD player if I could. Again you have to register now anyway, so I couldn’t even if I wanted to.

    And there’s the thing. They did used to put on content that was superior to other public broadcasters in other countries. They had a reputation for comedy and for drama. You can get the World Service TV in hotels all over the world. Some of their programming does turn up – even on Amazon. So there is the genesis of a possibly viable international business there. I think they missed a trick maybe 20 years ago when Sky was a money loser and nobody had thought of subscription telly. It may not be too late. They have a recognisable brand. It is saleable on cable and satellite and streaming platforms all over the world. It should become a subscription service. It very possibly has a commercial future. There are already other free or cheap services and advertiser model services, so its not like the two dozen folk with Logie Baird tellies and monochrome licences will have to go cold turkey. If they want to pay themselves stupid money salaries its no longer our concern as forced payers of a fee. They can react to the market as they want. Not our concern. I would ensure that ownership laws are framed so that the shareholders have to be domiciled in the UK. The idea is not to let Rupert get rid of a competitor, but to free up the “wealth of talent and expertise” they claim to have to run as a commercial business. Good luck to them. But we should no longer be compelled to pay for propaganda or for a service many of us do not use.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Well said, David.

      I can’t add much.

      Tv has never been a part of my life. But I do feel sorry for pensioners (over 75) who can ill afford the tv licence and who don;t watch that much BBC, but who don’t have the tech knowledge to do what you have done, and who will either have to fork out £150 from their awful pensions, or give up their only entertainment, which may mainly be non-BBC programming, to pay Gary Lineker an off the wall salary.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.