Comments:Noel Edmonds, British TV presenter, starts boycott of TV license fee in UK

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

I heartily agree with Noel Edmonds, we should also stop all of these freebie trips by the top reporters and their retinue of support going to far off places at the license payers expense, Travelling first class and living in first class hotels, and reporting on things (such as the Zimbabwe elections, which could have been done over a Sat phone with The people already in situ) The massive coverage of the Olympics which involved thousands of BBC employees being in Beijing, a lot of whom know nothing about sport, but were there for absolutely no other reason other than a holiday. If the BBC makes a loss then it is passed on to us, the LicensePayers, and the license fee is just increased. If the BBC has to fund itself and produce a profit as any other commercial station has to, then there will be a lot more incentive to both work and to cut costs.

Mr Ken Hislop Pensioner Harrogate

Good grief! You must be a rabid Conservative to suggest a profit-seeking BBC. That would kill the organisation and flush quality down the toilet in the rush to bombard people with advertising and other dreck. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Sure, someone doesn't quite support extreme socialism and government intervention in everything so they must be a rabid conservative. </sarcasm>

Surely Brian the license fee is bad for the poor and a commercial BBC would mean equality, so one could say that a socialist should endorse a commercial BBC. Anonymous101^talk 18:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen commercial TV, and I've seen that benefits are supposed to factor in the cost of the license. Just like I oppose Wikinews being beholden to advertisers, I oppose the same for the BBC. The lack of product placements and other 'revenue generating' promotional material keeps them free and independent. The BBC provides a public service, heaven forbid they couldn't report on something because a company had sank x million in advertising into them. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

TV license Fee

wether justified or not, noel is in the fortunate position of being able to pay the Fee or the fine for not paying the Fee. I, however am not, Illness forces me to live on £43.00 a week benefits, on such an income I am not required to pay income tax yet the BBC is taking me to court for non payment of what is effectively a %20 TV Tax. Entertain educate and extort, they wont even take the TV in lieu! —Preceding comment added by Citizen carrot (talk • contribs) 17:09, 16 September 2008

Threats & harassment

Although he's one of the reasons why my Dad got rid of his telly, Edmunds is absolutely right. With no television, these officials came round to our door year after year. One time, the little hitler got a good talking to from my Dad, because he thought it was normal to bang on the window, rather than knock on the door, like a normally socially adjusted person would. It took ten years for them to stop sending letters. And then he made the mistake of turning 75... This time, he got a barrage of letters explaining how his life would be so much better if he got a free telly licence. He sent letters back saying he didn't want one. So yes: "threats and harassment" is about right. --Rfsmit (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)