Comments for en-gb 30 Fri 27 Feb 2015 23:07:47 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at Stephen Jones - in our hearts we are Greenlanders Extreme background music, announcers talking over the end of programmes, DOGs and coming next banners in programmes, shrunken credits, the highest fees to the worst presenters: i'd rather not have the bbc at all and so not pay at all. Fri 12 Dec 2008 12:09:08 GMT+1 TheNotary I would be willing to pay the current license fee just for BBC Radio - particularly Radios 3 and 4 - which is what I have done for the past 30 years. When the children were young we would borrow a television for Christmas, which made paying the fee a legal requirement, but we haven't had a TV at home for years. So if the fee were scrapped I would be happy to pay what I do now, knowing that it was just going to support the services I use. Of course, every time I buy a tube of toothpaste or box of tissues I am paying towards commercial television which I neither want nor watch, but I have no choice in that! Thu 27 Nov 2008 11:00:35 GMT+1 jonnie Re: ianlomas,So that's you, Stewart and myself now.Perhaps they will start listening ;-)I wonder how many pence JR costs us a day? Tue 25 Nov 2008 11:22:36 GMT+1 ianlomas I would be happy to pay the existing fee less the amount saved by ridding the airways of Mr J Ross Mon 24 Nov 2008 23:12:13 GMT+1 pocketpoet I am happy to pay the licence fee, I am happy for the licence fee to rise - although I object to it paying for a switch to digital that I do not support or want.I would happily pay double the licence fee if we could be rid of Sky. There can be no price put on what value an end to that unpleasant and pernicious virus would produce. The BBC / licence fee is a bargain, the very existence of Sky is an blight on society. Mon 24 Nov 2008 18:55:13 GMT+1 Lady_Sue Oh and agree about that silly salary Mr. Ross is being paid. I'd love to know the others too - that four wheeled Clarkson chap, for instance. He's in everything to do with cars and makes a tidy sum on his books on same about every six months. What about Mr. Palin? If I did pay a licence fee I'd be miffed about it going on sending him off on one exotic holiday after another so he can tell us about it. Mon 24 Nov 2008 18:18:16 GMT+1 Lady_Sue Strangely I was wondering about this very thing earlier this morning. I don't pay a licence fee either - living across the Irish Sea and just south of the border in the Republic. Am I listening/watching TV legally or illegally? Mon 24 Nov 2008 18:14:40 GMT+1 needsanewnickname Having been rather jaundiced on the iPM thread, I'd just like to add that the BBC is priceless. In several senses. But still the 'least worst' broadcaster there is, probably.** Was that Charles Curran's phrase? Your starter for 10. Mon 24 Nov 2008 17:56:36 GMT+1 U12196018 Frances (14) - Than tongue will stick permanently in you're cheek if your not careful. Mon 24 Nov 2008 17:52:17 GMT+1 Screamingmuldoon I beg to differ FF. Live programming requires a license. I have queried this, because it is ambiguous.Big Sister, I kind of agree with you about the holiday home, but what if you sneak off for the weekend and leave the significant others at home - you could then be watching both tvs at once. I am reminded of a friend telling me that his kids were fighting over what to watch on TV - despite the fact that they both had sets in their bedrooms. He did the "That's it!" Dad thing, unplugged all the TVs and stashed them in the garage. Temporarily forgetting that it was the night of some kind of frightfully important football thingy. Mon 24 Nov 2008 17:35:46 GMT+1 needsanewnickname Sid (1), I would of made the same comment if I was pedantic. I didn't used to be, but, its owing to this blog. Mon 24 Nov 2008 17:33:18 GMT+1 Fearless Fred Erm, Screamingmuldoon, it is a legal requirement (apparently) to have a TV licence, even if you are only using iPlayer to watch BBC content. See this link for details: Mon 24 Nov 2008 17:15:51 GMT+1 David_McNickle Having just complained to Songs of Praise about its dumbing down (yet again), I'm not willing to pay any more. Mon 24 Nov 2008 17:02:44 GMT+1 Stewart_M Jonnie, Ive just sort if said the same as you on the iPM Thread. Great minds eh! Mon 24 Nov 2008 17:02:35 GMT+1 Charlie jonnie@07 & 09"I would willingly sell my house and all it's contents to support the BBC"I have advised Mr Darling. You should expect his letter of thanks imminently - postage will regrettably, following this afternoon, be "collect".I take your point entirely:"The BBC should be nurturing fresh talent."Maybe the BBC should concentrate on hiring talent, full-stop..! Mon 24 Nov 2008 17:01:46 GMT+1 jonnie I still find it impossible that the BBC can justify the massive salary of Jonathan Ross.Let the likes of JR go to ITV - if indeed the commercial sector can still afford him.The BBC should be nurturing fresh talent. Mon 24 Nov 2008 16:42:52 GMT+1 Big Sister Jonnie, you may have to ;o) Mon 24 Nov 2008 16:25:33 GMT+1 jonnie I would willingly sell my house and all it's contents to support the BBC Mon 24 Nov 2008 16:22:32 GMT+1 Big Sister I do pay (and willingly) my TV Licence annually, but resent hugely being persecuted about not having a licence for our holiday home. Indeed, I think the Licence should belong to the household, not the address, since nobody can watch TV in two places at once.Incidentally, we don't have a TV in our holiday home, but this doesn't stop the menacing letters. Mon 24 Nov 2008 16:16:42 GMT+1 Screamingmuldoon It is a good question. The answer is no more than I currently pay - which is nothing. I gave up on TV in 1999. Although I have to admit, I have been watching things on iPlayer, and I think I should pay a subscription for that. It is currently free because it's not live. Big deal - the selling point is surely that you can watch when it suits you. The BBC are now in a perfect position to learn from Sky and other providers. Do what they do - only better, and cheaper. Oh, and don't change the ts and cs half way through a subscription term. And forget bundling. We're not stupid, we know a pile of crap when we see it and it's not "entertainment" or "lifestyle", it's crap. Mon 24 Nov 2008 16:07:00 GMT+1 Charlie So, we'd be paying for "a chip-off-the-old-block"?Which reminds me: Mon 24 Nov 2008 15:55:11 GMT+1 U12196018 Sid - If I were you, I'd withdraw that offer. Eddie can edit these post, you know? Mon 24 Nov 2008 15:46:14 GMT+1 Simon Hmmm, good question.We were promised a sharp reduction in repeats and more original content by the current DG and his management team.So we find episodes of the current series of Spooks being 'previewed' on BBC Three at 22:30 on Monday, shown in the 'regular' slot at 21:00 the following Monday and repeated a third time the following Sunday after that late in the evening. That's three hours filled for a one hour expenditure.Or 'Merlin' being shuffled around on Saturday evening, then repeated on the next day, filling two hours of primetime for a single episode.Value for money? Broken promises more likely.All I bother with, a handful of specific programmes aside (Spooks, Apparitions, Survivors currently) is PM and the BBC News channel. Nothing else on the entire box even rates a mention.WR. Mon 24 Nov 2008 15:43:46 GMT+1 Sid I'd send you a fiver if you replaced 'was' with 'were' ... Mon 24 Nov 2008 15:21:05 GMT+1