
There's saving money, and there's being tight: saving money at the expense of other people, or simply for the miserly hell of it.
Tell us about measures that go beyond simple belt tightening into the realms of Mr Scrooge.
( , Thu 23 Oct 2008, 13:58)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread

are on near constant repeat on the satellite channels whilst being viciously punctuated with ads every few minutes. I'd assume BBC are getting a few quid out of that.
( , Mon 27 Oct 2008, 12:40, 1 reply)

Gotta love Dave.
But the point I was trying to make is without the license fee would they have been made in the first place?
It's been pointed out that many actors started their careers with the BBC (including Stephen Fry, Hugh Laurie, Rowen Atkinson, John Cleese) might not have got the chances they did if it hadn't existed.
( , Mon 27 Oct 2008, 12:45, closed)

I suspect they'd have done alright.
( , Mon 27 Oct 2008, 12:49, closed)

might not have been made in the first place, but some of those are over 20 years old.
I realise that you pay a licence to pay for these things to be made, but surely they didn't expect each and every one of us to cover the whole cost of making them each did they?
I mean, surely just one licence fee pays for things like 'Dog Borstal'?
( , Mon 27 Oct 2008, 13:52, closed)

are part owned by bbc and virgin media so there makning shit loads out of it already down with the licence
( , Wed 29 Oct 2008, 20:47, closed)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread