stop paying money to a pro pedophile organisation for services that they do not provide

Doubleme

It is time we stop been forced to pay money to an organisation that constantly defends pedophiles, for services that are often provided by other organisations.

I am fed up of been forced to pay money to the Racist anti semetic peodphile protecting BBC, in order to enjoy content that they have nothing to do with.

Why is this still a thing? is £169 a year a lot no not really but its the principle that enrages me it could be £16.90 or even £1.69 a year and it would still anger me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LSbuJbIUSo

gogogadget

Totally agree.
However, you are not forced to pay it, you have a choice. Just stop. Easy. I did.

Tikay10

"pro pedophile organisation"


I would suggest that is not only misleading, but it's wholly incorrect.

The BBC directly employs some 38,000 staff, with many more employed indirectly as contractors.

ANY group of 38,000+ people anywhere, in any country, will include quite a few paedophiles.

It's hard to find a definitive % of paedophiles in the population, with the more sensible estimates suggesting it's between 1% & 5%, see....


The prevalence of pedophilic disorder is unknown, as the social stigma around it does not invite people to self-identify. Estimates of its prevalence range from one to five percent of the male population.


And more generally if you want to verify, have a look yourself, here...


https://www.google.com/search?q=what+%+of+population+are+paedophiles?&rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB1096GB1096&oq=what+%+of+population+are+paedophiles?&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCjExNzEwajFqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


If we take the very bottom of that range, 1%, that would suggest that in any representative group of 38,000, there would be 380 with a paedophile leaning. If we took the top of that range, the BBC would employ 1,900 paedophiles, at the bottom of the range, 380.

So suggesting that the BBC are pro-paedophile does not make sense. Yes, there have been others over the last 30 years- Saville, Hall, Harris etc (although Harris was NOT employed by the BBC) - but logically, in a 5 figure sample size, there are BOUND to be, quite literally, hundreds of them.


"Racist anti semetic peodphile protecting BBC"

I don't believe there is a reasonable body of opinion that suggests the BBC are racist or anti-semetic. Sure, it's always accused of being so, but there's no real evidence. An organisation that is 100% balanced will attract criticism from both sides.

Before we attack the BBC, maybe worth considering the services it provides on a wider, more balanced view. As an example, the BBC World Service provides news right across the world in 40 different languages & reaches 210 million people every week. In many parts of the world, it's an essential aid. Most of us have benefitted from it at some point in our lives, & whole nations in the Third World & Asia still rely on it.

The BBC provides many other essential services too - you may scoff at "The Shipping Forecast" but over the years it's helped keep untold numbers of sailors safe.

There's a bit more to the BBC than Strictly & the occasional paedo, disgusting as society deem the latter to be.

Incidentally, paedophilia is actually an illness, or more correctly, a psychiatric disorder or, in plain English, an illness.


"sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object. specifically : a psychiatric disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child."


These facts suggest that suggesting the BBC are pro-paedophile because they employed Saville & Edwards is wholly wrong.

Tikay10

stop paying money to a pro pedophile organisation for services that they do not provide



What does that mean, (the emboldened part) & give some examples please.

HAYSIE

Tikay10 said:

"pro pedophile organisation"


I would suggest that is not only misleading, but it's wholly incorrect.

The BBC directly employs some 38,000 staff, with many more employed indirectly as contractors.

ANY group of 38,000+ people anywhere, in any country, will include quite a few paedophiles.

It's hard to find a definitive % of paedophiles in the population, with the more sensible estimates suggesting it's between 1% & 5%, see....


The prevalence of pedophilic disorder is unknown, as the social stigma around it does not invite people to self-identify. Estimates of its prevalence range from one to five percent of the male population.


And more generally if you want to verify, have a look yourself, here...


https://www.google.com/search?q=what+%+of+population+are+paedophiles?&rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB1096GB1096&oq=what+%+of+population+are+paedophiles?&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCjExNzEwajFqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


If we take the very bottom of that range, 1%, that would suggest that in any representative group of 38,000, there would be 380 with a paedophile leaning. If we took the top of that range, the BBC would employ 1,900 paedophiles, at the bottom of the range, 380.

So suggesting that the BBC are pro-paedophile does not make sense. Yes, there have been others over the last 30 years- Saville, Hall, Harris etc (although Harris was NOT employed by the BBC) - but logically, in a 5 figure sample size, there are BOUND to be, quite literally, hundreds of them.


"Racist anti semetic peodphile protecting BBC"

I don't believe there is a reasonable body of opinion that suggests the BBC are racist or anti-semetic. Sure, it's always accused of being so, but there's no real evidence. An organisation that is 100% balanced will attract criticism from both sides.

Before we attack the BBC, maybe worth considering the services it provides on a wider, more balanced view. As an example, the BBC World Service provides news right across the world in 40 different languages & reaches 210 million people every week. In many parts of the world, it's an essential aid. Most of us have benefitted from it at some point in our lives, & whole nations in the Third World & Asia still rely on it.

The BBC provides many other essential services too - you may scoff at "The Shipping Forecast" but over the years it's helped keep untold numbers of sailors safe.

There's a bit more to the BBC than Strictly & the occasional paedo, disgusting as society deem the latter to be.

Incidentally, paedophilia is actually an illness, or more correctly, a psychiatric disorder or, in plain English, an illness.


"sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object. specifically : a psychiatric disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child."


These facts suggest that suggesting the BBC are pro-paedophile because they employed Saville & Edwards is wholly wrong.

It may also be worth pointing out that it is a TV licence, and not a BBC licence, again.
I have made this point before.
Although common sense may be out of place, on a thread with such a ridiculous title.



A TV licence is a form of taxation that funds the BBC1. It covers you to watch live on any channel, TV service or streaming service, and to use BBC iPlayer on any device234. The TV licence fee also enables the BBC to provide a range of programmes and services on TV, radio and online.



In the United Kingdom and the British Islands, any household watching or recording television transmissions at the same time they are being broadcast is required by law to hold a television licence. This applies regardless of transmission method, including terrestrial, satellite, cable, or for BBC iPlayer internet streaming. The television licence is the instrument used to raise revenue to fund the BBC and S4C.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom

Tikay10

To my way of thinking, a "TV Licence" costs around £0.47 per day, & that funds all the BBC Services, including TV & Radio. I listen to the radio when I'm in the car, & I can't recall ever listening to a non-BBC station.

As for TV, "no adverts" on BBC 1, 2, 3 & 4 is a glorious luxury which alone is worth the 47p per day.

I almost never watch ITV, Ch4 or Ch5 as I can't stand the repetitive & banal adverts. And I'm happy to pay a subscription to NetFlix, PRIME etc, plus the premium You Tube Service so that I'm not forced to watch ads.

Other countries have Public Broadcasting Companies, funded by various means, but, essentially, by the taxpayers. None of them can hold a light to the BBC for quality of news, documentaries, Nature programmes (has any channel ever bettered David Attenborough's various Nature series?), Current Affairs etc.

As to radio, has anyone here ever listened to Desert Island Discs? It's a truly wonderful show.

There have been very few days in my entire life when I have not either watched BBC News on the TV, or listened to it on the Radio.

I genuinely think the BBC has enhanced my life.

HAYSIE

Tikay10 said:

To my way of thinking, a "TV Licence" costs around £0.47 per day, & that funds all the BBC Services, including TV & Radio. I listen to the radio when I'm in the car, & I can't recall ever listening to a non-BBC station.

As for TV, "no adverts" on BBC 1, 2, 3 & 4 is a glorious luxury which alone is worth the 47p per day.

I almost never watch ITV, Ch4 or Ch5 as I can't stand the repetitive & banal adverts. And I'm happy to pay a subscription to NetFlix, PRIME etc, plus the premium You Tube Service so that I'm not forced to watch ads.

Other countries have Public Broadcasting Companies, funded by various means, but, essentially, by the taxpayers. None of them can hold a light to the BBC for quality of news, documentaries, Nature programmes (has any channel ever better David Attenborough's various Nature series?), Current Affairs etc.

As to radio, has anyone here ever listened to Desert Island Discs? It's a truly wonderful show.

There have been very few days in my entire life when I have not either watched BBC News on the TV, or listened to it on the Radio.

I genuinely think the BBC has enhanced my life.

Going back to the days when I was working, I used to spend the equivalent of 2 days per week in the car, every week.
So I had the radio on 2 days per week, every week.
I used to be a cricket fan, and the BBC cricket coverage was, and probably still is the best.
I still watch lots of telly, and regard the licence fee, as excellent value for moey.

Tikay10

HAYSIE said:

Tikay10 said:

To my way of thinking, a "TV Licence" costs around £0.47 per day, & that funds all the BBC Services, including TV & Radio. I listen to the radio when I'm in the car, & I can't recall ever listening to a non-BBC station.

As for TV, "no adverts" on BBC 1, 2, 3 & 4 is a glorious luxury which alone is worth the 47p per day.

I almost never watch ITV, Ch4 or Ch5 as I can't stand the repetitive & banal adverts. And I'm happy to pay a subscription to NetFlix, PRIME etc, plus the premium You Tube Service so that I'm not forced to watch ads.

Other countries have Public Broadcasting Companies, funded by various means, but, essentially, by the taxpayers. None of them can hold a light to the BBC for quality of news, documentaries, Nature programmes (has any channel ever better David Attenborough's various Nature series?), Current Affairs etc.

As to radio, has anyone here ever listened to Desert Island Discs? It's a truly wonderful show.

There have been very few days in my entire life when I have not either watched BBC News on the TV, or listened to it on the Radio.

I genuinely think the BBC has enhanced my life.

Going back to the days when I was working, I used to spend the equivalent of 2 days per week in the car, every week.
So I had the radio on 2 days per week, every week.
I used to be a cricket fan, and the BBC cricket coverage was, and probably still is the best.
I still watch lots of telly, and regard the licence fee, as excellent value for moey.

I was the same back in the day, I virtually lived in my car as I had to drive all over the UK & Ireland for my job, & the BBC kept me sane. I often drove through the night, & I'm sure it was the BBC World Service that kept me sane, they have an amazing programming array.

On BBC TV, yes, their cricket coverage was superb, but these days cricket is almost exclusively on "commercial" channels, although to be fair they do cover it very well indeed. Shame about the ad breaks though.

Doubleme

Tikay10 said:

"pro pedophile organisation"


I would suggest that is not only misleading, but it's wholly incorrect.

The BBC directly employs some 38,000 staff, with many more employed indirectly as contractors.

ANY group of 38,000+ people anywhere, in any country, will include quite a few paedophiles.

It's hard to find a definitive % of paedophiles in the population, with the more sensible estimates suggesting it's between 1% & 5%, see....


The prevalence of pedophilic disorder is unknown, as the social stigma around it does not invite people to self-identify. Estimates of its prevalence range from one to five percent of the male population.


And more generally if you want to verify, have a look yourself, here...


https://www.google.com/search?q=what+%+of+population+are+paedophiles?&rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB1096GB1096&oq=what+%+of+population+are+paedophiles?&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCjExNzEwajFqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


If we take the very bottom of that range, 1%, that would suggest that in any representative group of 38,000, there would be 380 with a paedophile leaning. If we took the top of that range, the BBC would employ 1,900 paedophiles, at the bottom of the range, 380.

So suggesting that the BBC are pro-paedophile does not make sense. Yes, there have been others over the last 30 years- Saville, Hall, Harris etc (although Harris was NOT employed by the BBC) - but logically, in a 5 figure sample size, there are BOUND to be, quite literally, hundreds of them.


"Racist anti semetic peodphile protecting BBC"

I don't believe there is a reasonable body of opinion that suggests the BBC are racist or anti-semetic. Sure, it's always accused of being so, but there's no real evidence. An organisation that is 100% balanced will attract criticism from both sides.

Before we attack the BBC, maybe worth considering the services it provides on a wider, more balanced view. As an example, the BBC World Service provides news right across the world in 40 different languages & reaches 210 million people every week. In many parts of the world, it's an essential aid. Most of us have benefitted from it at some point in our lives, & whole nations in the Third World & Asia still rely on it.

The BBC provides many other essential services too - you may scoff at "The Shipping Forecast" but over the years it's helped keep untold numbers of sailors safe.

There's a bit more to the BBC than Strictly & the occasional paedo, disgusting as society deem the latter to be.

Incidentally, paedophilia is actually an illness, or more correctly, a psychiatric disorder or, in plain English, an illness.


"sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object. specifically : a psychiatric disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child."


These facts suggest that suggesting the BBC are pro-paedophile because they employed Saville & Edwards is wholly wrong.

they have had Jimmy Saville I believe Rolph Harris and now Hugh Edwards is it?
often with rumours of cover ups. its too many big names. In regards to x% of the adult population been pedophiles how are we defining that? there is a world of difference between having urges/attractions/thoughts and acting on these.
I would go as far as to say and this may be controversial but someone who is that way inclined but recognises it is wrong and never acts on it never abuses a child and never looks at child **** should have nothing to answer for. your responsible for what you do not what temptations or thoughts pop through your head.
I accept that any organisation sufficiently large will have immoral people of all kings working there they cant possibly know all their staffs secret lifes etc but when it is consistently high profile figures and it keeps coming out? I mean sure if it was that they called out anyone they could and blew it up eg the cleaner the admin assistant the security guard etc etc, then sure I would say its unfair to go for them. But it is frequently cases of high profile figures.

With regards to anti semeticism there are numerous examples I could research and dig up but everyone would try to say that is not anti semetism so it would be a wasted effort.

With regards to the fee I think it is perfectly right and fair that they can charge for services they provide if the BBC win a bid to show the world cup euro cup etc etc and I want to watch that on the BBC then it is within normal trade and rights etc to expect to charge me some sort of fee or make a profit in another way eg avdertising.
What I have said many times before is I resent the fact that if I do not choose to watch BBC programming but instead choose to use the services of organisations entirely independent and unrelated to the BBC that I should have to pay the BBC for that.

If I went into tescos and just took what I wanted without paying for it, I am sure most of the community would agree that I should be arrested in this scenario for shop lifting. However if I went into Sainsburys to buy my shopping and paid for whatever items I had taken at Sainsburys would people then suggest I should be arrested for shoplifting again because I did not pay a fee to Tesco? that seems absurd.


whether the BBC do or do not have high quality or decent programming is irrelevant as this will be subjective and down to the individual, but someone who does not watch BBC programming should not be forced to pay the BBC for watching materials that have nothing to do with the BBC.

mumsie

whether the BBC do or do not have high quality or decent programming is irrelevant as this will be subjective and down to the individual, but someone who does not watch BBC programming should not be forced to pay the BBC for watching materials that have nothing to do with the BBC.

As Haysie pointed out, its not a BBC licence, its a TV licence.

Tikay10

"they have had Jimmy Saville I believe Rolph Harris and now Hugh Edwards is it?
often with rumours of cover ups. its too many big names."



Well they had 2 or 3 "big names" that we know of (we can't count "rumours") in around 40 years, & that's in a Corporation that probably employs more famous people/celebrities than any other single business on earth, certainly in Great Britain.

I'm really not sure that qualifies them to be described as "pro pedophile" (sic).

kapowblamz

It's such a huge problem with today's zeitgeist. The narrow minded folk just group everybody and everything connected under whatever label is floating nearby, and they will fight to make sure they stick, just to spread hate.

HAYSIE

Doubleme said:

Tikay10 said:

"pro pedophile organisation"


I would suggest that is not only misleading, but it's wholly incorrect.

The BBC directly employs some 38,000 staff, with many more employed indirectly as contractors.

ANY group of 38,000+ people anywhere, in any country, will include quite a few paedophiles.

It's hard to find a definitive % of paedophiles in the population, with the more sensible estimates suggesting it's between 1% & 5%, see....


The prevalence of pedophilic disorder is unknown, as the social stigma around it does not invite people to self-identify. Estimates of its prevalence range from one to five percent of the male population.


And more generally if you want to verify, have a look yourself, here...


https://www.google.com/search?q=what+%+of+population+are+paedophiles?&rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB1096GB1096&oq=what+%+of+population+are+paedophiles?&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCjExNzEwajFqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


If we take the very bottom of that range, 1%, that would suggest that in any representative group of 38,000, there would be 380 with a paedophile leaning. If we took the top of that range, the BBC would employ 1,900 paedophiles, at the bottom of the range, 380.

So suggesting that the BBC are pro-paedophile does not make sense. Yes, there have been others over the last 30 years- Saville, Hall, Harris etc (although Harris was NOT employed by the BBC) - but logically, in a 5 figure sample size, there are BOUND to be, quite literally, hundreds of them.


"Racist anti semetic peodphile protecting BBC"

I don't believe there is a reasonable body of opinion that suggests the BBC are racist or anti-semetic. Sure, it's always accused of being so, but there's no real evidence. An organisation that is 100% balanced will attract criticism from both sides.

Before we attack the BBC, maybe worth considering the services it provides on a wider, more balanced view. As an example, the BBC World Service provides news right across the world in 40 different languages & reaches 210 million people every week. In many parts of the world, it's an essential aid. Most of us have benefitted from it at some point in our lives, & whole nations in the Third World & Asia still rely on it.

The BBC provides many other essential services too - you may scoff at "The Shipping Forecast" but over the years it's helped keep untold numbers of sailors safe.

There's a bit more to the BBC than Strictly & the occasional paedo, disgusting as society deem the latter to be.

Incidentally, paedophilia is actually an illness, or more correctly, a psychiatric disorder or, in plain English, an illness.


"sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object. specifically : a psychiatric disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child."


These facts suggest that suggesting the BBC are pro-paedophile because they employed Saville & Edwards is wholly wrong.

they have had Jimmy Saville I believe Rolph Harris and now Hugh Edwards is it?
often with rumours of cover ups. its too many big names. In regards to x% of the adult population been pedophiles how are we defining that? there is a world of difference between having urges/attractions/thoughts and acting on these.
I would go as far as to say and this may be controversial but someone who is that way inclined but recognises it is wrong and never acts on it never abuses a child and never looks at child **** should have nothing to answer for. your responsible for what you do not what temptations or thoughts pop through your head.
I accept that any organisation sufficiently large will have immoral people of all kings working there they cant possibly know all their staffs secret lifes etc but when it is consistently high profile figures and it keeps coming out? I mean sure if it was that they called out anyone they could and blew it up eg the cleaner the admin assistant the security guard etc etc, then sure I would say its unfair to go for them. But it is frequently cases of high profile figures.

With regards to anti semeticism there are numerous examples I could research and dig up but everyone would try to say that is not anti semetism so it would be a wasted effort.

With regards to the fee I think it is perfectly right and fair that they can charge for services they provide if the BBC win a bid to show the world cup euro cup etc etc and I want to watch that on the BBC then it is within normal trade and rights etc to expect to charge me some sort of fee or make a profit in another way eg avdertising.
What I have said many times before is I resent the fact that if I do not choose to watch BBC programming but instead choose to use the services of organisations entirely independent and unrelated to the BBC that I should have to pay the BBC for that.

If I went into tescos and just took what I wanted without paying for it, I am sure most of the community would agree that I should be arrested in this scenario for shop lifting. However if I went into Sainsburys to buy my shopping and paid for whatever items I had taken at Sainsburys would people then suggest I should be arrested for shoplifting again because I did not pay a fee to Tesco? that seems absurd.


whether the BBC do or do not have high quality or decent programming is irrelevant as this will be subjective and down to the individual, but someone who does not watch BBC programming should not be forced to pay the BBC for watching materials that have nothing to do with the BBC.

You remind of a couple of planks that are not very long.

HAYSIE

mumsie said:

whether the BBC do or do not have high quality or decent programming is irrelevant as this will be subjective and down to the individual, but someone who does not watch BBC programming should not be forced to pay the BBC for watching materials that have nothing to do with the BBC.

As Haysie pointed out, its not a BBC licence, its a TV licence.

​The legal way to avoid paying the TV licence fee




What are the TV Licence rules?

The rules covering TV licensing are pretty clear. It doesn't matter if you watch on a TV, smartphone, PC, laptop or tablet or on a terrestrial channel, on social media, on a TV service or an overseas channel - if it's live TV (even if you recorded it to watch later) then you need a TV Licence.

You do need to buy a TV Licence if you watch or record any live TV broadcasts on any channel or platform, including (but not limited to), terrestrial channels such as BBC, ITV, Channel Four and Channel 5, digital channels such as E4 and Dave, streaming services such as YouTube, NOW or Amazon Prime, Sky, Virgin and BT.
You also need a TV Licence if you use BBC iPlayer, but you don’t need a TV Licence to use BBC websites, or listen to BBC radio.

According to TV Licensing, the BBC body which collects and enforces the TV Licence: 'It is an offence to watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on any channel and on any broadcast platform (terrestrial, satellite, cable and the internet) or download or watch BBC programmes on demand, including catch up TV, on BBC iPlayer without a valid TV Licence.'

But you do not need a TV Licence to watch:

streaming services like Netflix and Disney Plus
on-demand TV through services like All 4 and Amazon Prime Video
videos on websites like YouTube
videos or DVD
So if you only watch the above, non-live, services on whatever devices you use, then you do not need to get a TV Licence.

How can I prove that I never watch live TV?
You do not have to inform TV Licensing that you don't need a TV Licence, but it's a good idea to avoid any problems if you just stop paying and you might get a refund.

This Guardian article recommends that if you are going licence free, it is a good idea to disconnect your aerial, delete BBC iPlayer apps from all devices and clear any BBC cookies and caches. Make sure you set up any TV platforms so they can no longer receive live TV and don’t install any live TV services.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/the-legal-way-to-avoid-paying-the-tv-licence-fee/ar-AA1ojRiX?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=e789a2888036489185b3ca0713987a99&ei=40#

Bean81

Wp, Tikay. The BBC is excellent value for money IMO.

Doubleme

mumsie said:

whether the BBC do or do not have high quality or decent programming is irrelevant as this will be subjective and down to the individual, but someone who does not watch BBC programming should not be forced to pay the BBC for watching materials that have nothing to do with the BBC.

As Haysie pointed out, its not a BBC licence, its a TV licence.

well yes but that is a non point.

by that logic chinas concentration camps are not cocncentration camps they are reducation camps
Russias invasion of Ukraine is not a war but merely a military operation
Money paid to suicide bombers and terrorists is not paying people to commit attrocities but is merely compensating the families of suicide bombers for the lifes lost

I mean when I give the hypothetical scenario that you should not have to pay tesco for shopping at sainsburys, its pretty simple then thats fine absolutely fair if that is legally mandated. Just they dont call it the tesco licence they call it the food licence and then 86% of it goes to Tescos?

I mean I know I can be hyperbolic at times but that is one of the most nonsensical arguments I have heard.

I mean we could justify slavery rape murder genocide etc etc all by just redefining the words or putting another name on it. Its fundementally dishonest and avoiding the issue.

86% of the licence fee goes to the BBC it is simpyl not right that we are legally forced to pay one organisation if we want to use the services of other organisations which have nothing to do with it. The fact that they call it one name or title instead of another is not a knock down argument.

HAYSIE

Doubleme said:

It is time we stop been forced to pay money to an organisation that constantly defends pedophiles, for services that are often provided by other organisations.

As I have said a number of times previously, it is a television licence not a BBC licence.
The rules are very clear.
If you watch or record live TV, you need a TV licence.
So you pay the licence fee, to allow you to watch TV.
Any TV, not just the BBC.

You have 4 choices,
You could just pay the licence fee, and stop moaning about it.
Alternatively, you could stop paying the fee, and accept the consequences if you get caught.
Thirdly, comply with the rules that allow you to forego paying for a licence.
Or just dont watch the telly.


Could you explain why you think the BBC defends, and protects, paedophiles, because they clearly dont?

I am fed up of been forced to pay money to the Racist anti semetic peodphile protecting BBC, in order to enjoy content that they have nothing to do with.

The TV licence is a tax.
Successive governments have used this tax, as a method of funding the BBC.

You have quoted 3 examples of paedophiles, out of many thousands of employees, over 40, or 50 years.
I dont think that could be considered an epidemic.
Although I am certain that they would appreciate any advice you are able to offer them, regarding the aviodance of recruiting any paedophiles.

You have quoted a number of silly comparisons, including supermarkets, etc.
When this is quite simple to understand.
If you watch or record live TV, on any device, you will need a TV licence.

Why is this still a thing? is £169 a year a lot no not really but its the principle that enrages me it could be £16.90 or even £1.69 a year and it would still anger me.

You might benefit from reading the below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC