TV Licence Fee Decision

Yes - though that question was purely around the concept of them receiving free licences, not the BBC adopting funding for the free licences, rather than Government (which has funded them up until now) and thus closing BBC Two, BBC Four, CBBC, CBeebies, BBC Scotland and a whole bunch other services to pay for them.

The response to that question could well have been very different.

It's like being entitled to a free bus pass but hardly having any buses you can use.

If the BBC really did come under sustained pressure to review the situation I honestly think they should make the point of what the service would look like should they fund them and pull the channels that would have to be closed for a few days, and then see what people really think of the reality.

Nice idea – but I suspect in reality people would just say 'get rid of Gary Lineker and Graham Norton (etc. etc.)'.

Whatever the arguments for higher paid talent, it's hard to persuade the public that you're poor when you're paying people large amounts of money. Sure it doesn't add up to the projected £745m, but the public doesn't perceive it that way.

This could be a double edged sword - the public doesn't like it when you claim poverty and then hand Lineker, Norton et al a fat sum every year, yet if they went for a whole bunch of unknowns and new talent who are obviously going to be significantly cheaper, the public could complain there's nobody they recognise fronting their shows.

Here's a couple of things that have been mentioned to me in recent weeks by 'ordinary folk'.

'Why did they send so many reporters to Madrid for the Champs League Final ?'

'Why is Sally from Breakfast in Nice on the beach giving us the sports news, while there's another reporter at the stadium ?

I'm making no comment one way or another as to the validity of those observations, but perception of spending and cost, is more important than the actual reality

For this reason, I've never thought it a terribly good idea to do 'lives' on the 10pm national and regional bulletins from outside of a building that's been empty since 6pm.

I think a lot of people, and the papers think they could have one reporter at an event for an 18 hour shift doing reports for 5 different networks. And one I've genuinely seen suggested of only needing one camera to cover Glastonbury

Well having only one camera at Glastonbury will recreate the visual experience you'd get if you were there in person...

Especially if half of the view is blocked by other people.

Just stick your phone in the air and watch the concert through that.

Through a phone screen is the only true way to appreciate a concert these days.

So what needs to be done to remove that perception ?

Unless you're watching Judas Priest: