OT :Well they certainly didn't ask me

[The3rd Earl Of Derby]

You must be joking

[Guy King]

The message from "The3rd Earl Of Derby" contains these words:

I would. I rather like the BBC (what little telly I watch) and certainly would fade away without Radio 4. I definitely don't want it to go all commercial.

[keith_765]

If they were to get rid of one of the two news readers, and one in stead of two presenters on shows. That would reduce the cost, ones enough. Trevor Mc Donald does it on his own.

Keith

[dcbwhaley]

That is 44.5p per day. Much less than the cost of a daily paper

[Bob Eager]

Depends on the daily paper. Even 45p-50p doesn't make this 'much less'.

[Roger]

The message from "The3rd Earl Of Derby" contains these words:

as opposed to the £11 it currently costs - were more likely to be well-educated and earn over £50,000 a year."

Definitely not a random survey then, but what would you expect from a self serving organisation like the BBC.

[Guy King]

The message from Roger contains these words:

What evidence do you have that they only asked people who fall into that classification?

[dcbwhaley]

All four national daily newspaper cost substantially more than 44.5p

[Bob Eager]

There are more than four. I am not sure if you are being obtuse or snobbish.

[Roger]

The message from Guy King contains these words:

That is not what I said. I am suggesting that the survey is severely biased, not that they only asked those earning over £50000.

A random survey would have reflected the income distribution of the country. I don't have time to check atm but I suspect that those earning over £50000 pa is only a small proportion of the majority that would have been needed to justify their claim that the public was in favour. (I tried a quick google but as usual national statistics seem determined to make it impossible for anyone to find what they are looking for).

[The3rd Earl Of Derby]

Well its obvious they didn't do a survey in poor areas.

[Tony Bryer]

The Telegraph is £96 per year on annual subscription

[Guy King]

The message from Roger contains these words:

But that's not what the claim made says.

"Those willing to pay most to fund the BBC - between £15 and £31 a month as opposed to the £11 it currently costs - were more likely to be well-educated and earn over £50,000 a year."

Doesn't say that most of the people they asked were in that group or even that many of the people they asked were in that group. All it says is that /some/ of the people asked those were in that bracket and that those (may be very few) people were more likely to agree.

For example. They ask 100 people, 98 of whom are below that income bracket, 2 are in it. Of the 98, say 30 agree. Of the two, 1 agrees. That exactly fits the text; those in that bracket (let's ignore the education bit for now) agree 50% of the time, those below it agree 30.6% of the time. The higher earners agree more than the lower earners. But it doesn't mean they were over-represented.

You're reading more into the report than can be justified by the words in contains.

[Roger]

The message from Guy King contains these words:

On the contrary you are reading with blinkers on. The report starts with the following paragraph in bold type under the heading "Public 'support licence fee rise' " "The public is willing to pay an extra £31 a year for the BBC licence fee, according to a report commissioned by the government."

That doesn't fit the bill at all. For the report as a whole to be true the first imperative is for at least a simple majority to find the increase acceptable (and that is overlooking the weaselly way in which "between £15 and £31" in the detail has translated into a certain £31 in the preamble).

I will be off-line for the next few dayss so don't expect me to say anything further on the subject for the present.

[Pete C]

Read the 'Have Your Say' bit via the link at the bottom - LOL!

cheers, Pete.

[Paul Andrews]

Me too.

Paul