The BBC cannot even mention the word England – it just sticks in their throats. So lets have done, call it the Celtic Broadcasting Corporation and be gone with all pretence.

You want to prize and protect it? Fine, you pay for it then, and stop expecting those of us who don’t to subsidise it for you.

So there are things which are easier to watch on DVD – okay, let’s get them direct to download and DVD, as quickly as possible and at costs which reflect their license-funded status. The only reason this doesn’t happen is slavish devotion to the broadcast model.

Note, I’m not suggesting any major changes or reductions in what the BBC does, but simply a shift in priorities and objectives.

Actually, it’s not Murdoch that is suffering as a result of the BBC’s ability to fund itself by (effectively) a tax on every television. In fact, Sky is doing very well: BSkyB, a satellite broadcaster and telecoms outfit, is now the BBC’s only serious rival. I suspect that a large proportion of the >40% of the market not controlled by the five terrestrial channels is Murdoch’s. OTOH, my friend at ITV says that the BBC is killing them.

Now, I don’t watch ITV and I suspect others here don’t either. But it is generally popular (particularly with socio-economic groups that tend not to be associated with political blogs) and should not be put out of business by unfair competition.

Ultimately, I can’t see any reason why we don’t replace the TV licence with a pay-per-view fee. I suspect that a lot of people would happily pay for the BBC voluntarily, even many of those who moan about it. It would mean that those who don’t watch it (which are largely the “lower” socio-economic groups rather than those from whom many of the vocal detractors are drawn) would not have to pay for it.

If it did lose (say) a fifth of its viewers, these would be viewers who clearly don’t value it. Some arrangement could be made to ensure that the poor had access to some channels – those who now qualify for a free TV licence, for example, could receive subsidised access. I would rather that they were given the money and allowed to decide for themselves if access to Cash in the Attic was the best way to spend £142.50, but if the prevailing view were that access to TV is a basic human need, it could replace TV Licence exemption.

As for the BBC’s revenue, if it lost (say) a fifth of its income, it might be forced to make some tough but necessary choices about priorities. In that case, I don’t doubt that 6 Music would be “rationalised”.

The difference is I’m not forced by law to pay money to Murdoch for using the services of one of his competitors.