TV licence subsidises lifestyle of presenters
READERS may have received a letter from TV licensing; the letters are generated from a company called “Capita”.
At the time when the BBC announced it couldn’t afford to retain concessionary TV licences to the over-75s, it paid “Capita” £100m to collect unpaid licence fees. Are pensioners to be their main target?
The BBC has an audacity to charge £157.50 for a TV licence, when there are hundreds of channels available, and so few are linked to the BBC.
The majority are commercial channels paid for through advertising. However, the BBC claims it needs licence fees to make new programmes? What tosh! For most of the year, the programmes are repeats.
We all know why the BBC needs £3.9bn – it’s to pay its programme presenters enormously bloated pay packets. An example is Gary Lineker, his pay is £1.2m.
They employ a few hundred on similar rates of remuneration. Why is someone such as me expected to buy a licence to subsidise his lifestyle, when I don’t watch any sports? There’s only one programme I would watch on BBC, that’s Line of Duty. On a pay-as-you-view basis, my TV license fee should be down to about a fiver?
For other viewing; I persevere through endless hours of duplicating advertising.
TV licensing is unfair, it needs abolishing. Without licence fees the BBC would have to forgo its lavished pay structures and start paying presenters fairly. After all, millions of workers are expected to live on minimum pay, so why not BBC presenters, also?