web analytics

BBC TO EXTORT OUR PENSIONERS

By Pete Moore On July 9th, 2020

Until now over-75s have not had to pay the hated telly tax.

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.

Note the propaganda: over 75s will not “be asked to start paying” the hated telly tax. They will have to pay it or go to prison. Even the mafia is more polite than the BBC. So that’s how the BBC will raise £100 million “to increase diversity on TV” (to lie propagandise and employ more blacks to tell us how racist we are).

Many pensioners don’t have that money lying around spare. Half of over 75s are disabled and hardly ever leave home. The TV is a lifeline, but the horrible, evil BBC now demands money they haven’t got or they get a knock on the door and a prosecution.

I haven’t submitted to their threats for 20 years. Nothing ever happens. Just shred the letters. The response to the BBC’s extortion from our senior citizens should be a campaign of mass civil disobedience. Our pensioners should ignore the BBC’s threats and dare it to prosecute.

14 Responses to “BBC TO EXTORT OUR PENSIONERS”

  1. Trumps had bad news today too petem, what can be said .
    don’t get caught breaking the law buddy its £1000 fine
    #LAW and ORDER

  2. Scrap the licence fee say I.

  3. Scrap the licence fee say I.

    As do I.

    Pete,
    Out of interest, would you like to see the BBC scraped?

  4. Dave –

    Not all of it. Some of what it does is excellent. The Left is so dopey it never sees that the main strength of national institutions lie in the national unity they provide. But the BBC’s news and current affairs is hopelessly biased and propaganda drips through its entertainment output. It would be doing itself a massive favour if it again became impartial, but impartial people don’t live there any longer.

    My beef is really with how its funded. A poll tax in TV ownership is indefensible. The BBC likes to trumpet how good it is. Very well then, let it back up those words by going to subscription.

  5. Removing the benefit for over 75 year olds seems exceptionally petty.

    I am surprised that the government would do such a thing.

    If the older 75s or younger have low income, are they exempt from paying it?

    The BBC is not just a British institution, it is a world one.

    Hundreds of millions I believe would watch or listen to its TV or radio on all inhabited continents and at sea. I listened to it on short wave when sailing the Black Sea.

    US cable TV news is so politicized now – if you wish to listen to a halfway objective account of US politics, your only alternative here is to watch BBC World News, which is now on every major cable and satellite system in the US and Canada I would think. Didn’t used to be but it is now.

  6. Phantom –

    It’s a BBC decision in the end. The BBC wants the government to subsidise the over 75s. The government says the BBC has enough income and should continue to do so.

    No-one is exempt from the licence on the basis of income.

  7. I’d agree with subscription . BBC wants to have it’s cake and eat it . It’s still wonderful not to have any adverts . I would miss that peace .

  8. Exceptionally weird financing system in a time of a hundred TV stations, and where your computer and phone are ” TVs ” and radios also.

    Since I pay for cable and my cable company pays for the BBC rights, I am funding the BBC!

  9. Pete seems to dislike being called dishonest, so I will be charitable and suggest that he has, with uncharacteristic lack of thoroughness, overlooked a couple of salient points.

    Until now over-75s have not had to pay the hated telly tax., writes Pete.

    Well, true up to a point – if by ‘until now’ he meant ‘since 2000’.

    Before November 2000, all pensioners paid for their own TV licences. Then, in the sort of munificent gesture that Pete normally abominates, the Blair government announced that henceforth the government would pay the cost of licences for the over 75s. Oh, and what a coincidence – mere months before a general election! The BBC still received the income, but it came out of the Treasury’s coffers. BOOO! said Pete. For paying for freebies from the public purse is never a good idea.

    All remained the same until 2015, when the newly-elected Conservative government cut a deal with the BBC. The licence fee would be retained, said Mr Cameron, but there are strings attached. Firstly, the Foreign Office will cease to put any money into the World Service (which, incidentally, was the cheapest source of soft power the FCO has ever had); secondly, the BBC will now bear the cost of the freebie licences which the Blair government gave to the over-75s.

    The problem with this arrangement? The BBC can’t actually afford to take this sort of hit to it finances while retaining all its services. So, the dilemma: lose several of its networks or local radio services, or ask over-75s to pay for their own licences?

    My view? There would be a stronger argument for the continuing existence of the BBC if it had two or three TV channels and four radio channels, rather than the bewildering diversity of output it now offers. So I would be quite content for them to give free licences to the over-75s and cut their services back quite severely. But there are plenty of people who would disagree.

    Anyway, Pete’s post is an absolute travesty which omits all the important background and shamelessly misrepresents the facts. If one didn’t know that Pete had made a few simple errors one might almost think he had done it deliberately.

  10. ..the World Service (which, incidentally, was the cheapest source of soft power the FCO has ever had);..

    Absolutely no question about that.

    There is believed to be an enormous number of listeners in the developing world, and in unfree countries.

    For a couple of years, I was one of them, listening to BBC World radio every night in the pre internet days.

  11. I forgot to include the TLDR version of my comment above.

    If you had only read Pete’s post you might be under the misapprehension that the BBC has always met the cost of licence fees for over 75s.

    The opposite is true. Under the terms of the deal forced on the BBC by the Conservative government in 2015, it is only now, summer 2020, that the BBC has had to shoulder that cost for the very first time.

  12. The BBC World Service is more important than ever with Trump gutting the Voice of America.

  13. Perhaps another option would be for the BBC to be centrally tax funded for a core specific main range of services – say a couple of network channels, News, local news and some radio channels, and then to be allowed to have a commercial arm (additional channels, streaming services etc) which it would be permitted to raise funds for in whatever voluntary way it chose – subscription, PAYG , advertising

  14. colm the more i read this thread the more i realise the BBC is a bit of an old dinosaur
    Charging over 75’s is the final straw , its a rotten thing to do .