TV licence

I am all for paying "the going rate" but I cannot think of anything Gary Linneker does/presents that warrants his 1.75million salary.

The BBC pays the big names big money because if they didn't they would take their services to some other broadcaster who would meet their demands. It is the same reason that footballers get such ludicrous salaries and poorer football fans can no longer afford to watch live football.

It is the government that wanted to get rid of the free tv licences for over 75 year olds. They did not want to do it themselves because it was bad news and all the Conservative voters, mostly over 75 years old would go and vote for other parties like Brexit (which they did any way) so they decided to hold the BBC over a barrel and forced them to take the responsibility for the free licences because they knew the BBC could only continue to offer it if they drasticly cut back on the availability of free licences. If free licences for all over 75 year olds were kept the BBC programming would look like the average local tv station, cheap fill ins, amateur presenters, no stars you have heard of, no sport and no costume dramas. Keeping the universal free licence would have meant the death of the BBC.

For once my sympathies are with the BBC. I am over 75. I still pay for my licence. I hate patronising freebies. I watch very little tv. I consider the tv licence to be a radio licence that pays for the pleasure of listening to R3 and R4 and both are well worth paying for.

M0nica
You don't need a licence for radio programmes.

It was a freebie that is ending. You can't expect things to go on forever. Bank rates change.
Savings interest rates change.
A million other things change over the decades.
You pay more for a Senior railcard than when they first came out.
Really 'poor' pensioners will still get the free licence but the vast majority of the rest can afford £3 per week and that's a fact.
If they're mostly housebound (hate that word) then they're not going out for coffees, meals out, cinema trips, foreign holidays or other entertainment, so 3 quid is very cheap for entertainment at the flick of a button.

Who was complaining over rail fares ? My D and SiL travelled from Euston to Liverpool for £18 single each on Monday. I remember paying that in 1982 ! Granted, it took 4 hours but what the heck ?

I didn't infer that anyone moaned about rail fares, it was an example of prices changing over the years.
Liverpool to London has always been a cheap route. I've done it for £12 rtn.

Gary Lineker and Alan Shearer's pay is ridiculous! What on earth do they do to deserve those colossal sums? Unlike some of the others they haven't voluntarily reduced their pay.

As much as I agree about the high salaries presenters are paid I feel Gary Linneker has become the favourite target of many when his salary is negotiated by his agents who will take a hefty commission,he also gets a unknown amount from BT for his BT Sports coverage and an undisclosed amount from Walkers Crisps if he where my son I would be saying well done son good for you.

I wasn't referring to you Gabriella.

It was a while back when someone complained about the annual cost of a ticket and/or rail increases.

I know very little about football, care even less, so have no idea whether Gary Lineker is worth his colossal salary. I do watch Strictly, know a fair amount about dance, and do not believe Claudia Winkleman is worth half of what she gets paid, would not say earns, whereas the judges are. John Humphrys is worth every penny;(how I shall miss him when he goes) and Nick Robinson I would not pay in brass washers.
But the quality and type of programme that the BBC is putting out now is very poor. I do a lot during the winter months, very little in the summer, so am condemned to rubbish or repeats most evenings, from eight until 10pm. Don't mind my own company, radio or silence during the day, but not at night.

Ok EllanVannin, noted. Thanks.

It is not a question of whether Gary Lineker deserves what he is paid. If the BBC or anyone else wants his services, this is what they must pay or else someone else will. I bet the BBC would love to pay him - and all those other 'celebrities' less, but the price for the BBC would be doing without them.

Gabriella, I know, but radio still has to be paid for and the money they use is money that comes from the tv licence. Once there was a separate radio licence, but it was discontinued and merged into the tv licence.

I am more than happy to make a contribution to the value of a tv licence to pay for radio. I like to pay my way, especially when I can listen to so many marvellous talk programmes and wonderful music.

I would suggest that for 3 months the BBC doesn't use any of these overpaid "stars" and instead recruits from local tv and radio. I think there would be an increase in the quality and the salary bill would be a lot less.

If my local radio and tv are anything to go by, quality would go down.

The question of withdrawal of free TV licences is always going to be contentious.

Many who would qualify for pension credits do not claim, and many who can afford a TV licence at 75 were getting them free.

Surely one question is why are pensioners in a low pension and not getting a liveable income.

Gabriella As someone who is virtually housebound, I don't hate the word, but do hate the reality.
But what else describes this reality as succinctly.

I’ve no problem at all with talented/popular presenters being paid the going rate, or more if they’re worth it and the Beeb wants to retain them. But I really don’t “get” Gary Lineker, who earns nearly three times as much as the next highest paid presenter (Graham Norton). I’ve never heard anyone say they’re a huge Lineker fan, or they’d stop watching MOTD if he wasn’t on it. On the other hand, I do love Graham. My Saturday mornings aren’t the same when he has his long annual break from Radio 2 and we’re subjected to hours of witless tittering by Alan and Mel. Though someone must like them.

Apologies to those who do.

Maggiemaybe I love Graham Norton on Saturdays Radio 2 far more than I like his tv chat shows.

Really if I had the choice, I would put as much as I could into making quality tv programmes and dispense with celebrity as far as possible.

I agree Monica that it is a way of the government cutting the money they paid for free licences without alienating their core voters, many of whom IMO are not fans of the BBC anyway. We do not know what independent broadcasters pay their "stars" but I would guess it's a good deal more than the BBC. I think the BBC still has quality documentaries and plays and is worth the licence money which I don't mind paying. However there are many pensioners, who are not eligible for pension credit, but are just about managing. My mother is one who is housebound Gabriella and doesn't spend money on going out.......but towards carers four times daily, extra heating, she is immobile, extra laundry, she is incontinent, lifeline call button....and very much more. The TV is an essential for her but will be an extra expense which she can ill afford.

Whitewave- I agree with you but I don’t seem to be able to recognise or have heard of half the celebs that there seem to be about.
So perhaps I’m not typical?
Strictly has survived without Bruce, I’m sure it would also be fine without overpaid presenters. I don’t know what the judges are paid but at least they are experts in their field.

I read that article why do those people earn such huge amounts. They aren't nurses brain surgeons teachers people who make a difference to this world. They earn far too much.

People have to realise if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. All these highly paid people could get the same money elsewhere if they moved if not more. I could willingly see the back of Garry Lineker but he is popular and does a good job. If the BBC paid less they would not get these people .