BBC Aged-Related TV Licence Consultation - have your say

cornergran, like you, my experience is based on contributing to a range of consultations in my area, but with the BBC, as well, DD worked for them for some years and still has friends working there. Her opinion on 'consultations' like these run by the BBC, is to graphic to print on these hallowed pages.

I share your cynicism M0nica, it is a cynicism I generalise from involvement in consultations ranging from employment issues to the NHS and all stops in between. It would be good to be proved to be wrong.

I am getting deeply cynical. I think all these consultations are just window dressing.

The BBC already know what they are going to do. GN is just being spoken to so that they can provide: (Merely) corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. (The Mikado, Gilbert & Sullivan)

Option C. I think any discount should apply across age range so anyone who is on benefits gets a reduced cost. Many older people like me and our friends have work related pensions and can afford the fee, unlike many others who are disabled or unemployed.

It is clear in recent times that the BBC has been grossly financially mismanaged. They no longer have the monopoly on broadcasting and need to innovate accordingly. I see no real innovation in any of the options given.

Once again we see another remake of Robin Hood, only this time it is a story re-write of Robin Hood or should that be the BBC's Robbing Hood who now takes from the poor to give to the rich.

The elderly are some of the most vulnerable and lonely with decreasing mental health in society, so the BBC chose to pick on them. A disgrace. Do all these highly paid individuals really want to do this to the elderly?

Come on BBC executives you surely have the brains to match your salaries so sort it out without the re-write or data breach.

The fuel allowance and the free license for over-75s' television (plus the derisory Christmas bonus) were introduced to increase funding for oldies without bringing pensions into the lower tax bracket. The latter would have been massively unpopular among a demographic that historically votes at most elections. It's similar to the massive increase in expenses for MPs who could claim large sums of money without looking greedy because they had looked for a pay rise.

To use pension credit as a qualifier is wrong. There are many older people who having worked and paid into pensions are just above the DWP level required to claim. Those same people can be hit with full council tax too leaving many with less than had they been able to claim benefits. Also to vet applications that will cost money and will probably result in just as much being needed for that. Leave the system as it is, for some over 75 tv is about all entertainment they have as well as something to talk about when they are in company. 1st option for me. My reasoning is through experience with a relative.

Option 1.
There are many who are just above the threshold for pension credit who are financially squeezed. The companionship from a TV helps to offset the loneliness many elderly people contend with on a daily basis and therefore improves health outcomes.

I would also agree that, having paid the full cost of a license whilst working and raising children, this is the time that many pensioners can benefit from having supported the BBC during those years of limited viewing.

Means testing or commercialise it like all the other channels

I agree with everything jusnoneed said. The options put forward are not worth discussing while the BBC and the like pay over inflated salaries for talent. As can be seen from all the reality programmes, all the talent shows etc there is so much talent out there that deserve just as much opportunity to work for a reasonable wage. The country has an abundance and so no celebrity (need to be constantly on our screens) is worth so much that any household should have to pay such a huge amount for watching mainly mediocre programmes and some excellent and the many repeats/fillers.

Option 1 may well turn out to be the cheapest if they are going to keep any kind of concession as the administration costs of say 3c are going to be high anyway.

I agree with everyone who says cut down on the ridiculous salaries paid to BBC “talent”! I believe that quality watchable programmes are perfectly possible without paying bloated salaries! I too resent the licence fee as I rarely watch TV and when I do it’s mainly Netflix

Option 3a or 3c.

Option 1. Same as harrygran

www.theguardian.com/media/2018/mar/28/bbc-younger-viewers-now-watch-netflix-more-on-demand

which is probably why the BBC want to charge 75 year olds the licence fee

Option 2. A universal licence fee. Fair that way.

I think that we get amazing value from the BBC.
If, as has been mentioned, the young don’t pay for a licence and it’s only the older generation that watch television then advertisers will start to reduce their budget. If this happens then our ‘free’ channels will be in difficulties.
I do agree that there is a wealth of talent out there, how hard can it be to read the news???I’m certain that the beeb could cut their costs. I know that their remit is to cater for minorities but I think they could cut back on some channels, combine a couple maybe?
If I had to choose then 3c is my choice.

As some above have said make it free for Pensioners on Benefit.

RustBear
You are not factoring in the number of COUPLES (out of the 66m) living together who are both over 75 and who would only be assessed for 1 licence.

Option 3c.
An investigation into the bloated salaries, and production costs, needs to be undertaken as a matter of urgency, as does the quality of some of the programmes they are currently producing.

Option 3c - as others have said, many wouldn't apply for it but it would be there for those who really needed it.

PLEASE no adverts on BBC! Many adverts are really badly made, and the advert breaks often last as long as the programmes they interrupt, or so it seems. They drive me up the wall, especially seeing the same ones over and over again.

I agree about the ridiculous salaries and, while we're at it, how about doing away with the so-called celebrities who are only famous for being famous but have never actually done anything?

It is true though that bloated “celebrity” pay packets aren’t just a BBC issue. as proved by the salaries paid by other companies to the likes of Piers Morgan and Amanda Holden. Colossal irreplaceable talents admittedly. The BBC does at least seem to be tackling the problem now.

I admit I don’t understand why Gary Lineker earns so much more than anyone else at the BBC. Is he really so popular?

I would support option 3c. Data could be obtained electronically from DWP thereby eliminating any need for people to apply and also negate the costs associated with processing such applications.

I agree with other posters that the salaries that are paid for example to Gary Lineker and Claudia Winkleman are obscene. The reason given is that this is the market price. There are millions of people in this country who would comment on football for a fraction of Gary's fee.

3a, and stop paying such ridiculous salaries to “stars”.

I'm with you Blinko. I can't believe how many posters are happy to ruin public sector broadcasting with advertising. As I said previously, mindless advertising would ruin the BBC forever. You only have to look at the US to know that. The BBC is revered throughout the world and it's a shame people in this country cannot appreciate the value of non-commercial broadcasting and cough up a few paltry pounds to keep it that way.

I also believe that its programming should cater for minority interests as well as have mainstream offerings. Can't imagine anything worse than a diet of pap.

I reiterate that I am for keeping the concession for those in need.