1. Didn't realise that they take it in turn to provide the QS.

2. I have got a licence but object to the need for one.

I could afford the absurdly low TV "Licence" but choose not to have a television. However I do know the radio I enjoy is supported by the TV Licence.

Yet isn't it strange that people who do have a TV happily pay all sorts of subscriptions for all sorts of things, enjoy costly hobbies like model-engineering…. but begrudge less than a pint of ale a week for 3 TV and several radio channels; far cheaper than the subscription channels and all free of the peurile advertisements necessary to support the others.

If you don't like what's on telly, switch it off!

Hi, not sure if you mean the Queen's Speech in the State Opening of Parliament, or the Queen's Christmas message, but the Queen's Christmas message was on BBC 1 at 1500 hrs on Christmas day this year.

Regards Nick.

Edited By Nicholas Farr on 25/12/2021 23:40:31

M.G.

I did follow ur link but it's a bit heavy for me…I like his ideas tho…..

I just want the simple life now……

going to spend the rest of the day in the garden as its warm n sunny…..

Where are you? ..it's dismal here – 50 yard visibility and the kind of clammy damp that seems to get right into knees / back / elbows / workshop..

Be careful what you wish for! Two reasons why doing away with the licence fee is bad: one is the disadvantage of losing the only impartial broadcaster with a public service ethic, the other is it will hasten the end of easy to use telly.

If you dislike change, pay the licence fee! It because it helps pay for the terrestrial broadcasting network on which the commercial providers also depend – their throats get cut too! The future of terrestrial broadcasting as we know it is bleak: might have less than 10 years. In the long run, anyone who expects to to plug an ordinary telly into an aerial is on a loser. When the money runs out, terrestrial telly as we know it is gone. It's because broadcasting is losing customers to internet providers in huge numbers. The under 50s are far more likely to get their entertainment from Internet streaming services like Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney, Sky, Mubi and others. A high proportion of the best new programming is made by on-demand providers rather than broadcasters. No need on the internet for a licence unless BBC programmes are watched, but online entertainment isn't free!!! You pay for a fast Broadband connection and whatever group of subscriptions best suits your viewing interests. The good thing is choice and being able to watch programmes on demand rather than waiting for them to be scheduled by a broadcaster. On the downside, customers face quite a lot of admin, a bit of techy setting up, and rather complicated screen menus (because so much is available!) It's easy to spend far more than the licence fee on internet telly if you want the best of everything.

Terrestrial TV is showing signs of strain. When people move to on-line services the BBC lose the license fee and the commercial channels lose advertising revenue. Repeats are one way broadcasters can cover the financial gap, but repeats have limited appeal and make it harder for viewers to find the good stuff. A vicious circle – advertising and the licence fee can't cover the cost of making expensive new programmes so people jump ship and even less money is available for good programmes…

The BBC's Charter calls for it to 'to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain'. Other providers have no such constraints, leaving their audiences prey to propaganda, extremist opinion, and get-rich-quick schemes. I suggest it's bad for democracy to only have broadcasters who reflect the opinions of their owners, advertisers, or the government of the day. Essential in my opinion for all politicians to be tested and held accountable by an informed electorate. No letting idiots off the hook just because I happen to be a fan-boy!

Dave

BBC impartial, you have to be joking!

IMO the BBC has had it's day, not all their programmes are free, they are partners in Britbox for example. Their news reports are no longer unbiased and their editors censor so much actual news. So-called news is more speculative these days than a report of an event.They pay so-called celebrities vast sums of money (ours presumably) to try and keep pace with the commercial stations. Personally I don't care who reads the news and a salary of £500k plus, seems over the top for me as a license payer, and I won't even go into football presentation!

When abroad they won't allow you to access their live programmes on-line even though our close neighbours across the North Sea regularly watch for free! As someone has already said, the fee is tax and they should be open about that.

+ one on this.

There was a day when the news was impartial and the facts were reported, now we get opinions from the news teams that are quite partisan.

To be honest the last time I was at work and attended a meeting with food provided I had no idea that I was in fact at a party.

I never managed to attend a work meeting held in the garden with my wife and dog in attendance and free wine

Well the post is titled "Endless Repeats" and posted in the Tea Room. That's the way conversation flows and no harm in that.

The BBC has had a bit of a knocking on this thread, justifiably so IMO. I recently filed a complaint with the BBC regarding a presenter who, instead of chairing a debate on the Royals, gave out his own very strong opinion!. I had a delayed response from the BBC saying they would respond fully to my complaint in good time as they are currently inundated with complaints!!

Repeats are also great for the royalties….say no more!