Neither of those, obviously. Listen, I love BBC, I would love paying the license fee if I were a Brit. Considering all the great programming it's a complete bargain. We pay here in Croatia 8 pounds per month for nowhere near the same quality of programming. Mostly to import stuff from networks like the BBC.

I'm done. Let's just say I'm disappointed.

The BBC obviously does have to look at viewer figures but it's not what makes the final say like with other channels. I will be very sad if they shut down or have to resort to advertising as the other channels have because then they will just have to put out the same kind of stuff as them. (which they are forced to do a little of, but the current way of funding gives scope for the type of programs that would never recieve funding on an advertisement network)

The BBC has arguably the best news network in the world.
They make brilliant nature/science/historical documentaries
They have recently been making some excellent period dramas (not something that interests me but it does a lot of other people)
They have made some great comedy series in the past (I will admit there isn't much recent to my taste, I think C4 have overtaken them on that front)

I agree the way it is funded is flawed now, though strictly speaking you don't have to pay for your license unless you watch a BBC channel live, I don't think there is an easy way to prove you don't should someone come to your house to check. It's kind of like a tax in that almost everybody [is meant to] pay it, but like the NHS not everyone requires the same amount of service... and I agree I don't think that should apply to an entertainment service. But I will happily pay for the BBC to avoid getting another POS like ITV or C5, which are only useful for a few films they manage to secure rights to. (and even then ITV puts a news report in the middle of the film for some reason)

Well I think the actual rule is if you have a device in your home capable of receiving live BBC... I suspect given that it's possible to stream live on a PC/phone though that the rules have been relaxed in that case, and that they only apply to devices that receive the broadcast directly. (ie TVs & TV tuner dongles) Problem is the way TVs work you can't really disable BBC on them but still get the other channels, you might be able to delete BBC from your Freeview channel list which would give you an excuse should someone check up on you though.

Also I think there were recent murmurings about it no longer being a prosecutable offence if you don't pay too, it will still be illegal strictly speaking, but in the same way that it's illegal for anyone over 11 to ride a bike on the pavement but I doubt anyone under 18 has even been given a warning for it. So the rules are being relaxed (not sure if that is in effect though, best check up on it if you are planning on stopping payment)

Nope.

May has hinted a couple of times that it's game over, but he still hasn't confirmed anything. Meanwhile, Hammond has gone off the radar.

Maybe in a few days we'll know more because, if I'm not mistaken, their contracts end this month. Clarkson won't be renewed but we'll see what happens with the other two.

Like ITV (which is so bad it's not even funny) or Channel 4? Both of  which get some funding from the TV licence.

Are you saying you do not use any BBC production at all? Their news website? their radio? If your dependence on the TV licence is 1 programme on BBC 2 for 12 hours a year, then fair enough don't pay. But the fact you've shown interest in the idea you don't have to pay if it's not live broadcast TV means you do.

Besides, there was far bigger BBC news this week than anything. Dion Dublin is going to present Homes Under The Hammer.

Sky has 2 main forms of revenue, a subscription which is far higher than the TV licence and adverts as well. BBC only has it's 'subscription'. Both companies will try and make money from licencing their products to the rest of the world or other means (sky's case, selling TV channel space). In terms of American programmes, HBO produces some quality but that is funded by subscription also, so is Netflix. But other then that, there isn't much from American TV that is any good really, it's just better funded (more money in US TV advertising). Eitherway, when it is shown in the UK, it's just a company paying for the rights to show it. so E4 pay for Big Bang Theory for example, I'd prefer BBC to produce it's own programming.

You are paying for a TV licence but only have Netflix and Prime? Yeah, stop paying immediately. Unless you live in a house where people do watch live tv, there is no point.

Rip Top Gear. Hilarious presenters and Cars? Great. Take one out and you got nothing.

On a side note I hope Jeremy gets his life back together, so that I can see more of him.

Clarkson should sign on for the American Top Gear. Celebrities can get away with anything here, so he can continue his violent outbursts and we can enjoy his commentary while looking at cars.

They do and did their own programmes for BBC over the years with no Clarkson. Sure, he helped them to be able to do that but still BBC would maybe like to offer James a new deal for his other shows, maybe.

To be honest, I think the whole thing is just getting a bit childish. Richard has remained hush because he probably thinks, like the many do, it's none of his business. Let's look at another aspect, Clarkson has cost James and Richard their jobs. I wouldn't be happy about that, not sure how they can be either.