I am not keen to join in the witch trial of the BBC, which is more about giving Conservative politicians less scrutiny and destroying competition for organisations that only want to get rid of the BBC, so they can rake in more money for their shareholders.
It isn’t possible to go to jail for paying the licence fee; that is a myth, you get a fine only. However if Council Tax, which is actually quite a similar charge, is a civil offence then the licence fee should follow, but that would also result in a fine. The only difference is the lack of a criminal record.
The licence fee rate was set by the Conservative Government when it wrote the BBC’s Charter in 2016, so the BBC can’t charge what it likes. Unfortunately there is no provision to vary the charge for ability to pay or a person’s wealth. Next opportunity to amend this is the charter renewal in 2027.
Most countries have a state broadcaster. Do we want to go down the road of Russia and have it state funded via taxation but controlled by the Government?
Do we want it to be an independent commercial company left at the mercy of market forces and see it ditch its unprofitable parts to avoid going bust?
Do we wanted it to be funded by its users and therefore free of Government but answerable to the audience? I prefer this but with more freedom to raise money from other sources (currently something like 25% commercial/other income and 75% licence fee), so the licence fee rate falls instead of rises.
Salaries – I want to know how they compare to ITV, Sky, Netflix etc. I bet you get paid less at the BBC, but you won’t know as BBC is required by law to publish salaries and other companies are not. From what I can see the Chief Exec of Sky gets £16 million a year; Netflix £7.5 million a year (before bonus), ITV £3.7 million and the Director General of the BBC £450k. So at that level the BBC pays significantly less.
So what I ask is for people not to fall into the trap of those who are trying to control the debate by use of emotion to get what they want – a BBC that does the bidding of Government and is weakened so other companies can make lots more money for shareholders.
Yes, reform, but not reform for the sake of it, but to fulfil the reasons why it exists, which have moved on from “inform, educate and entertain” to those listed here:
1. To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them
2. To support learning for people of all ages
3. To show the most creative, highest quality and distinctive output and services
4. To reflect, represent and serve the diverse communities of all of the United Kingdom’s nations and regions and, in doing so, support the creative economy across the United Kingdom
5. To reflect the United Kingdom, its culture and values to the world
* Lloyd Harris is a former Dacorum Borough Councillor & former East of England regional officer.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Morecambe and Wise and Leonard Rossiter
Full slate of Lib Dems in council by-elections
Getting things done - West Port #dundeewestend
Payback time
Katharine Pindar
David Warren
David Raw
57 Comments
It’s not a witch hunt. Most people seem to want to get rid of the licence fee. Anyway, it’s getting to the point where having a TV licence makes about as much sense as having a licence for harpsichords, wax cylinders and shadow puppets.
And what on earth does the salaries ITV pay have to do with anything?
The BBCs salary is paid by compulsion on those who do not use it but are forced to pay for it. This anachronism is now very close to its well deserved end.
Yes, make it answerable to its audience by replacing the tax with subscription. That is the only method that works for all of us.
I fervently hope that this govt will use its five ( or ten years ) in power to free us from this greedy, self obsessed throwback.
Lloyd is correct. Public service broadcasting is a bulwark of free speech against over powerful government or the manipulation and greed of big business.
It is most revealing how naive some people are if they can’t recognise Tory manipulation…. or are prepared to put up with mind numbing repetitive advertisements every ten minutes.
For what it’s worth I also agree with Lloyds piece, I would say a lot more about the reasons behind this attack on the BBC by this Tory administration but I would probably be censored!
David Raw
In the digital online age you don’t need to put up with any of those things. Also, do you not think it’s interesting that the age group least likely to vote Conservative are also the least likely to watch TV at all.
I also agree with Lloyd, David Raw and Barry Lofty
Although the BBC hasn’t been doing a great job recently and needs reform no way should it become the tool of the government of the day. Public service broadcasting is essential when private sector media outlets can become the tools or playthings of the rich and powerful.
Glenn 6th Feb ’20 – 5:53pm…………..Most people seem to want to get rid of the licence fee. Anyway, it’s getting to the point where having a TV licence makes about as much sense as having a licence for harpsichords, wax cylinders and shadow puppets………
Of course people don’t want to pay a lisence fee but most want the BBC; most people don’t want to pay tax but want the services that it pays for..
It’s called ‘human nature’.. As for your last sentence???????
The BBC is an anachronism.
There are now multiple news outlets and I can’t remember the last time I watched a bulletin. I don’t watch any of their programmes either.
The only time I tune in on the odd time I listen to the radio. I would however like to listen to the commentaries of my teams matches on BBC Radio Berkshire online but they are not available.
I pay all that money and the one time I really want to use it I can’t.
Get rid of the licence fee and give people a real choice by introducing a subscription service.
The licence fee is an outdated and fundamentally illiberal way of funding what is in large part an entertainment service.
It should move to a subscription model and than those what want to access its services can pay for them. The current system is equivalent to forcing people to pay Tesco in order to shop at Asda.
It is not right that people receive threatening letters to make them pay for an entertainment service they do not want or need.
There needs to be a fundamental review of how the BBC is funded and all options need to be on the table.
We also need to ditch the idea that the BBC is somehow the last bastion of quality output in a nest of vipers. Channel 4, Netflix and Apple all produce excellent programming without the need to extort or imprison people who do not want to fund them.
It doesn’t matter what Sky Itv etc pay their staff we are not forced to pay them each year. I am sure Ian Wright Chris Evans Vanessa Feltz etc are worth their massive wages but I don’t want to watch listen or pay for it.
Expats
Except they don’t seem that interested in watching it either. Plus it’s not really a tax. It’s an operating fee by an entertain behemoth forced on users of other platforms. The BBC has more in common with Disney than a it does a public service. I genuinely, think it’s outrageous to keep pretending that quiz shows, Eastenders, Doctor Who and the rest of their products are vital to public life. If we are going to have a public financed news /information service we should dump all the entertainment content and charge a bare minimum fee. ITV and other services would soon take up the various entertainments on offer.
Well, Lloyd this isn’t demonstrating a tide of support. Apparently, if we don’t support the BBC then we are unintelligent dolts being manipulated by Murdoch and unspecified evil capitalists and the wealthy (which is a bit rich considering the eye watering salaries of the BBC itself).
There are no arguments to defend the Corporation, all can be refuted by reception class infants.
Its supporters have to resort to some public service appeal as though Mrs Brown is in the same value bracket as Great Ormond Street. Laughable.
I want to carry on paying for it, the best radio I listen to is on the BBC and we are treated to a vast array of music programming, that’s why the BBC radio stations are so popular. Who are most people who want to get rid of the licence fee, I wasn’t polled on it?
Lloyd Harris 6th February 2020:
It isn’t possible to go to jail for paying the licence fee; that is a myth, you get a fine only.
And if you don’t pay the fine?
‘Nearly three-quarters of convicted TV Licence non-payers are women’ [July 2017]:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/17/70_pc_tv_licensing_convictions_women/
One potential issue with decriminalisation is that the burden of proof would be lower. Criminal convictions require the defendant to be guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Not so for civil debts.
You only need to mention the “TV Licence” and BBC, for people to have a knee-jerk reaction and lose any concept of rationale thought and argument.
The Government, not the BBC requires people to have and pay for a TV licence to watch or record live programme broadcasts; from ANY provider, not just the BBC. Also it is the Government who requires you to have a TV Licence to use the BBC iPlayer to access BBC programmes.
It is the government who has kept the TV Licence, dictated it’s price and decided how the monies raised from the TV licence are to be allocated. Whilst the majority of the monies collected are spent on the BBC, the government has been using the revenues to fund other things, such as the roll out of universal broadband access.
Given the Government has made no indication that it wishes to actually do away with the TV License – a wholly understandable thing to do, the question has to be why the Government wishes to change the status of the TV License with respect to non-payment.
I tend to agree with Jeff, this is more about facilitating collection with a much reduced involvement of the Courts than anything else.
As for those who dislike the BBC, remember this Government has already demonstrated it much prefers to hide from the public, media and democratic accountability; I suspect your whining is music to their ears, as it gives them licence to further emasculate the press and dumb down standards, starting with the BBC…
John Smith-Channel 4, Netflix and Apple all do produce excellent TV. However, how much quality news, current affairs and documentaries do they (or for that matter Amazon) actually commission/make/produce?
David Warren. If you watch TV but don’t watch ANY BBC content as you claim you are really truly missing out on some amazing content.
I think people need to be really really careful what they wish for regarding the BBC, and think about the alternatives. It’s all very well saying (for example) Sky News is better (and it does make great content) but Sky News isn’t a commercially successful business and only really survives due to its sugar daddy owners. And I suspect it’s editorial position is kept more honest shall we say by the presence of the BBC.
@Roland
Thank you for reminding me that I am incapable of rational thought. You have presented an argument for which I was not prepared which is that the licence fee has nothing to do with the BBC and it is our evil govt which forces us to pay it.
I presume that they then hand these billions over to the BBC because we have enough hospitals and policemen and they find themselves at a loss as to how to spend it otherwise.
Totally agree. I have been visiting America for 50 years.All the multi channel advert infested lousy programmes have crept over here in this time. Their independent broadcasters struggle to get sponsors and often have to interrupt programmes to promote whoever is sponsoring them. The BBC does need reform but this is not the government to do it
Andrew Walsh
The BBC is not a news channel. It’s an entertainment giant like Disney or CBS or Sky. It’s primary concern is beating rivals in ratings wars, not providing “unbiased” news coverage. People keep using the news argument, but this does not explain the BBCs entrainment output ,pay, commercial joint ventures with other entertainment giants and sales drives for its products . It’s a pretence to keep talking about the Beeb as if it was a publically funded minnow on a shoestring budget struggling against evil corporations, when it is actually a big business itself.
Jeff 6th Feb ’20 – 9:50pm…………………‘Nearly three-quarters of convicted TV Licence non-payers are women’ [July 2017]:…………
I’m not sure what that has to do with ‘the price of fish’… However, as there are only five people currently in prison for the offence I hardly think that those railing against the ‘draconian license fee punishment’ have much of a case.
Actually, most people ,when asked about BBC funding. consider the present system the fairest. That is not to say they support it but prefer it to any other proposed funding scheme.
As someone who has lived and worked in the US may I suggest that we take a long hard look at a system where there is no BBC…As my mother used to say, “You never miss the water ’til the well runs dry!”
I may live in Jurassic Park, but, strike me down with a subscription fee if you want, but I actually like the licence fee because it offers us a broadcasting service that is still second to none in its breadth and variety because it has the freedom to dare. You only need to watch a bit of US TV to see what I mean. I do agree that it is daft to criminalise non payment, however.
I have no problem with subscription – I do it myself with Netflix and Amazon Prime. I even enjoy ITV, although I tend to watch programmes like ‘Vera’ on ‘catch up’ as I get sick of all those adverts and their tiresome and repetitive idents. I guess that my generation’s clout on broadcasting mores will inevitably be superseded by the younger generation’s; but please not just yet
“It isn’t possible to go to jail for paying the licence fee; that is a myth, you get a fine only”
People don’t get sent to jail first but if they don’t pay the fine they do – see the story below. I think this article is misleading.
https://www.irishnews.com/news/2018/07/26/news/chronically-ill-west-belfast-grandmother-59-sent-to-jail-for-failing-to-pay-fines-for-having-no-tv-licence-1391675/
“I tend to agree with Jeff, this is more about facilitating collection with a much reduced involvement of the Courts than anything else.”
I suspect there’ll be more involvement for the courts but it’ll be through the bulk processing centres in the civil courts, as with council parking/bus lane fines etc, and the cost of enforcement will shift from being a centrally funded overhead to being something the BBC has to fund and manage through court fees. Collection might be facilitated, but at the expense of losing the criminal deterrent meaning rates of non-payment will likely increase.
Overall it’ll be financially +ve for Govt and -ve for the BBC.
It seems to me that many of the comments on this and other similar threads are disingenuous. The idea of the BBC being a subscription service implies that it would stay the same, just be paid for by those who want to watch it. Not likely. If it were a subscription service it would certainly be very, very much smaller and might well disappear altogether. Some of the programmes don’t entertain me, but an arguably neutral provider of news, and quality programmes seems to me to be something worth paying for. Maybe it should be funded out of general taxation, but throwing it to the privatisation wolves in a time when news is highly contested seems unwise.
@Jenny,
But that is the argument. Why would it be “very, very much smaller”?
It’s a national treasure and hugely popular, isn’t it?
If it did shrink that can only mean that the minority who like it had been robbing the majority who don’t, all along. How justifiable is that?
The problem started when the BBC started to try to compete with the commercial channels. By abandoning it’s Reithian values it has undermined the justification for the licence fee. In other words, if I choose to watch vacuous nonsense on another satellite channel then I pay for it, but I resent being told I have to watch rubbish on BBC.
If the BBC reverts to its traditional public service role it keeps the license fee, if it’s going to be a festival of the banal, then it goes to pay for view.
@Innocent Bystander – I don’t know if you are incapable of rational thought, however, you can take comfort that your post on the two recent TV Licence/BBC articles are more rationale than the several others I was actually alluding to.
“I presume that they then hand these billions over to the BBC because … they find themselves at a loss as to how to spend it otherwise.”
Well, that is a good explanation for them spending £250m a month on HS2 for the past few years, plus the monies being spent on other dubious vanity/ego driven projects… 🙂
However, more seriously, your comment does raise the spectre of the 1980’s where successive Governments found it hard to balance real and meaningful investment with the cries from various quarters, a situation that lead to the Government handing responsibility for such investment over to the EU and thus avoid having to take the media hit for why they have prioritised scientific research etc. over the NHS, the poor…
It also nicely shows a problem with ring-fenced taxation, why should I pay – say 1% extra income tax for education…
@Dan M-B – Thanks for putting clearly the point I totally failed to make. I was thinking of the overhead of individual criminal cases, which this change removes, enabling the much simpler processing of bill payment failure.
A real concern must be the ramifications of lowering the evidence threshold, as I suspect this will allow for both a more wide ranging interpretation of what constitutes a ‘programme’ and the easier pursuit of people who have broadband, but don’t have a TV License.
Silvio
“It doesn’t matter what Sky Itv etc pay their staff we are not forced to pay them each year.”
I don’t watch Sky, or much ITV, but I have to pay their salaries every time I buy products advertised in the breaks.
@Roland
Perhaps we could meet halfway. Would you concede that the licence fee is “quite important” to the BBC’s funding then the rest of us could debate it in a ‘rationale’ (sic) way?
p.s. I don’t think it funds HS2 for example. It is already ring fenced for the Corporation, by definition. Less than 10% goes to other broadcasters and broadband.
BTW funding from general taxation will kill it stone dead as it will end up bottom of any spending round. It’s only hope of survival is to follow a suggestion from another post (nvelope?) to split into a vanilla, advertisement funded broadcast channel and a premium channel behind a paywall. To defend the licence fee for another decade is a hopeless stand.
@ John Marriott. Good to hear your voice of sanity on LDV.
What some of our more extreme posters seem to forget is that the non BBC providers aren’t free. TV advertising revenue was almost £ 6 billion last year whereas licence revenue was just over half that. The said £ 6 billion came from the pockets of consumers who had to pay more for the goods and services they purchased in order to provide for the advertising……. still I suppose some innocents believe that all’s well in the jungle of unregulated free enterprise, and they probably have an attention span of less than ten minutes before the next mind numbing set of adverts appears on their telly.
And correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t BBC radio broadcasting free if you only use the radio ?
Having to pay extra for what ‘s advertised on commercial channels can be largely avoided once you realise that the ads are often for Which worst or don’t buys
@Innocent Bystander – I wasn’t implying that the TV Licence was funding HS2, just that the Government clearly think sufficient monies are going to the Hospitals, Police etc., and must be at a loss at how to effectively spend money if they feel it is okay to throw significant sums of money at vanity/ego projects…
Yes, the way things are, what the Government does with the TV License is important to the BBC. However, what isn’t clear is who are the beneficiaries of changing the legal status of non-payment – personally, I suspect the main beneficiary is Capita – the current operators of the TV Licensing scheme and who incur the costs of collection.
Interestingly, Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003, does seem to imply that the BBC could set up its own (independent of Government) TV License scheme… but then the Act does seem to be confused about the roles of the BBC and Government in the operation and enforcement of any license scheme.
>Less than 10% goes to other broadcasters and broadband.
Remember that is referring to monies the Government has split out from the BBC funding. Within the BBC funding are all the monies that help fund existing collaborations such as C4 the Freeview infrastructure.
My expectation is that the BBC will increasingly be funded outside of the TV License revenues, with the license revenues being increasingly redirected by the Government to other causes.
> funding from general taxation will kill it stone dead as it will end up bottom of any spending round.
This will also be the fate of many other things currently being quietly funded via the EU – the 1980’s are calling…
>To defend the licence fee for another decade is a hopeless stand.
It is notable that the current License requirements, seem to discourage the BBC from charging a subscription for their iPlayer service and some of their output. I think the problem the BBC themselves have been grappling with for some years now, is how to turn a Licence into a Subscription whilst taking the users with them. This (a subscription service) would dramatically change the PSO status of the BBC..
“TV advertising revenue was almost £ 6 billion last year whereas licence revenue was just over half that. The said £ 6 billion came from the pockets of consumers who had to pay more for the goods and services they purchased in order to provide for the advertising…”
Another old chestnut.
This won’t take long.
This logic means, and can only mean, that far from eliminating the licence fee, we should increase it ten or twenty-fold. Then we can pay ALL the broadcasters, Sky, ITN, Amazon, Netflix and all the rest, to be advertising free. Companies wouldn’t have to advertise at all. Prices in the shops would tumble. We would be quids in. Everyone would be happy. A world with no advertising and low prices.
As I said, reception class.
Mr Bystander surely qualifies for an honorary doctorate in reductio ad absurdum..
The BBC takes such a bashing from all sides at the moment its hard not to feel some sympathy, for all its flaws.
In the long run perhaps some arrangement can be reached where the news and public service element is subsidised but the entertainment part has to stand on its own two feet
I find Crapita such an appalling organisation, that the existence of them alone is almost validation for scrapping the licence!
This is the second thread on this subject in recent days. In both cases the person behind the nickname “Innocent Bystander” has dived in with an anti BBC message – going much beyond the narrower issue of licence fee funding. I realise LDV is an open channel and posters are entitled to anonymity but would Innocent Bystander like to tell us whether he or she has some special interest in this subject?
I have no such interest but as I said on the other thread my own view is that, flawed and needing improvement as it is, the BBC is a great institution. Countries around the world would think we were mad of we connived in its destruction – and that is what is only too clearly on the political agenda in influential quarters right now.
Dennis,
I confess. My real name is Rupert Murdoch.
I joke but elderly lefties still grieve about him and Wapping. My children’s generation has never heard of either.
I have no special agenda beyond the ending of the licence fee, except one, to which I will come.
But I have heard all the arguments before and it is easy to sound crushing when the responses are all ready to go and are difficult to refute and I specialise in bluntness.
Your argument that “it is a great British institution” is the best their is, and that leads to my one special animosity.
I don’t like its output, in any genre, because I find it smug, arrogant and self satisfied. I note that, at the moment, the Corp is forcing me to fund the rehabilitation of Ed Balls, as if that wouldn’t make anyone furious.
The BBC ‘s self certainty and its sense of entitlement also fuels the poison of British exceptionalism that keeps a seat on the UN security council, an unusable nuclear deterrent a hopeless belief in soft power and a pathetic craving to be admired throughout the earth. That led to Brexit and all the harm that is sure to follow in its wake.
So the it is basically the licence fee and its sense of how some panel of London luvvies believe that they have provided for everyone’s taste that annoys me. No they haven’t and it’s arrogant to think they could.
But worse, we need to modernise and reform, finally, finally, throw away the trappings of our Imperial past, such as the absurd HoL, our universities obsession with Nobel prizes for a tiny few instead of dramatic upskilling of the mass and our desire ( via the BBC) to entertain and inform the world (as though they are ever going to thank us for it).
So thank you, Dennis, for the excuse to sound off but the ending of the licence fee would force the BBC to see itself to be just like any other broadcaster and then, perhaps, the British could see themselves to be just like any other country.
Denis Loretto
Anonymity, doesn’t devalue the worth of a comment.
You think the BBC is a great institution and that’s fine. But what of the ‘conscripts’ who don’t think it’s a great institution but are forced to pay anyway?
It’s often said that £157 per year is fairly cheap for the BBC service, but its only cheap for your household because there are likely four conscripted households subsidising your viewing. Are you ready to let those conscripted households free and you pay the full price for your beloved BBC?
So, with your £157 + (4 x conscripted £157) = £785 per year
If you enjoy your BBC enough to pay the full unsubsidised £785 per year for it, then fine, you pay for your BBC and enjoy it, and let the rest of us use their money for entertainment services which they want, not for entertainment services which you want?.
Dilettante Eye: You do not know there are four “conscripts” forced to pay for something they do not want. It is mere supposition. I have met hardly anyone who complains about the TV licence fee, except for people who have an axe to grind who either hate the BBC for its deemed political bias or because they hope to make money out of its demise, such as Murdoch and other media tycoons.
You can imagine that Tory meeting can’t you. Look we want to privitise the NHS. Let’s start with the BBC, then…
The private media providers are constrained by the relatively modest TV licence fee when they would love to increase their charges even higher so they are seeking to force the Government to raise it by undermining the relatively straightforward method of collection to one where there will be civil court proceedings costing a lot of money with no certainty of actually recovering the fee as obtaining judgement often fails to produce the money. The idea of having voluntary subscriptions for public services is an interesting one coming from those who dislike those services because they are not provided by competing firms in the private sector whereas it is unlikely that it would be possible to provide competing public sector services at an affordable price for many so the private firms would have it all and raise their prices accordingly.
The BBC has done itself no favours by chasing the approval of the rabid right wing ( and it has and it still does). If a none commercial broadcaster is required (and I think it is) I would argue it needs to be a number of different broadcasters ranging from a BBC to independent local radiostations/papers/websites. How to pay for that well if we are to subsidise these, a digital tax would be my suggestion; let amazon/facebook/twitter/sky et al pay to undo the damage they do.
The BBC’s system of funding has produced a wealth of material that people seem to take for granted, but which would not have existed otherwise. We would never have had a commercial broadcaster giving the unknown and off the wall Monty Python the free reign they got to develop, or the various offshoots that followed, such as the films, or Faulty Towers, Rutland Weekend TV and the Ruttles. Or recently fleabag, taken from an obscure Edinburgh show. There are hundreds of examples.
The record industry never received public funding and on hitting the new digital technology it has virtually vanished into two main international corporations and a bunch of minnows often at the level of CD’s stored in people’s sheds and garages. It is no longer able to seek out and nurture talent as it once did.
As to value for money, BBC produce a far wider breadth of content than most of the alternatives. By contrast Sky seems to me to be a terrible rip off with a monthly fee typically half the cost of the BBC’s annual and with the continual intrusion of terrible advertisements every few minutes broadcast in audio compression, at higher volumes, losing viewing attention and patience .
Sky now rigs at least some of it’s user programme point/select systems to jump around deliberately and land more frequently on sky programmes and away from the tiny amount of BBC content they generally include. Murdoch detests the BBC, which is a good reason to keep it.
Netflix is mostly bought in American content and is billions in debt., having set a low monthly fee that may not be sustainable unless it virtually takes over the world. Yet the BBC is not greatly more expensive than this limited service.
2. My beef with the BBC is with it’s political stance. I believe it has seen the writing on the wall and decided that it would have a stronger future if the UK was in a close alliance with USA, where out could more easily sell English language programming. It made the right wing populist Farage a political figure plucked from the gutter level, deposit losing politics in UKIP, with a record number of appearances on QT for instance. Virtually all the substantial BBC political presenters are Tories and have been back to Robin Day and they used Interviewing and audience/Question selection techniques to destroy both Tim Faron as leader in 2017 ( Andrew Neil) and Jo Swinson ( BBC QT leaders ) in 2019.
Let’s not confuse imperfections and biases with throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Without the BBC to provide content, a lot of other platforms would struggle to find much that is not dreadful stuff from USA, Australia or dubbed/sub-titled, mostly poor quality and not culturally of us. This is one of the few things that Britain does best, so don’t mess too much with it
3) Anyone who doubts how low commercial broadcasting could sink if the BBC was trashed or lost as the standard, should look at the news service of the UK’s main commercial offer Sky, in Murdoch’s native Australia. Murdoch does not have complete editorial control of the UK’s Sky News, but Australian Sky News should be seen to be believed. It is nasty, very right wing populist rubbish and a complete anathema to any decent, open or progressive values and if you doubt this, go and see it on youtube, itself another platform where the politics are dominated by it’s nasty ilk.
It does not look that Australia has allowed major news broadcasting to be going out unregulated and with such terrible standards
As an aside, as a teenager in the late 70’s I recall some BBC programme, I recall some programme in early evening presenting a woman with second sight who claimed to be able to tell the future. She was asked who was going to win the next ( ’79 ) election and she stated Thatcher. She then predicted that most of the 80’s, 90’s and well into the next century would be mainly right wing and very right wing politics. At the time Callaghan was often slightly ahead of about level with Thatcher, so there were few clues then.
The new right is still playing out it’s ascent, but I believe it will end up eating itself as in promoting untrammelled greed, this has no bounds or scruples.
John,
Murdock has no editorial control of Sky in the UK he sold Sky to Comcast
21st Century Fox has agreed to sell its 39% stake in Sky plc, the owner of Sky News, after rival Comcast triumphed in an auction.
https://news.sky.com/story/21st-century-fox-agrees-to-sell-39-sky-stake-to-comcast-11509405
No, a witch hunt is by the powerful against a minority stereotyped, whether guilty or otherwise.
The BBC has power. Payers of tv licence, have no power. They must pay/ or else fines, prison.
As a Liberal Democratic party this one is a failure. The leaders and some here have no understanding of this issue.
You can have public broadcasting that is given a grant from the Department of culture. Th National theatre, RSC, galleries, museums, are independent f parties and govt.
We have no tax for the BBC, if it is one, it is what Tony Benn, who wanted to abolish it, referred to as a poll tax on viewing.”
For a Liberal party to condemn the review by the moderate and intelligent Baronness Morgan, a good choice as culture secretary, looking at decriminalising non payment, when backing decriminalisation of abortion, prostitution, drugs, is appalling.
There are liberals , who have a real notion of the word. They seem to be as much or more in other parties on this issue.
“You do not know there are four “conscripts” forced to pay for something they do not want.”
What I do know is there is nothing fiercer than a belligerent 75 year old with a sense of grievance at being wronged. Just wait for the plethora of YouTube videos of elderly folk with Zimmer frames being bullied and harassed by Capita,
Lesson the BBC is yet to learn (the hard way)?
It’s foolish to screw around with an angry 75 year old with time on their hands, and its business model suicide to crank that up to upsetting 3.7 million angry 75 year olds. The BBC has no idea what it has done or the fury which the ‘Grey Berserkers’ will bring down on its head in the next twelve months.
Every different funding model produces different programmes. For example the BBC couldn’t produce Mllionaire because it would be criticised over the prize money. Netflix etc. can afford to spend 10 times more per hour on drama because it can spread that over a global audience but it’s international not British. There are many types of programmes that only a free to air licence fee funded broadcaster can produce – it seems particularly sit coms. ITV has produced very few in the past 50 years. Life would be poorer without Fawlty towers, Monty python, yes, Minister, only fools and horses etc. And also British drama. ITV produces some but it is now incredibly narrow with say 90%+ being soaps and crime dramas.
The second thing is about half the licence fee is stuff that couldn’t be or I wouldn’t want to be behind a paywall.
Radio – by definition
Children’s TV – I’d want to keep ad free British content children’s channels. The BBC is the only broadcaster to have a news programme for children – important for tomorrow’s citizens.
BBC news website – I use and like other websites but they are either slanted or they’re relying on some sensationalising to drive traffic.the BBC us better than say the Daily Mail where everything either causes or cures cancer!
BBC News. If we are paying for that already for radio and website we should at least spend for the relatively small amount extra to have it on TV.
And more.
So about half of the current £3 a week would have to continue. And you can argue that the costs would double. Fewer people funding it is more per user that do. And costs are likely to rise – we may foam at the mouth at the costs of TV executives and talent but both are far more in the private sector.
So we are actually no better off
I am “forced” to pay for thousands of books in the public library that I will never borrow! But it’s ultimately value for money. It seems sensible that everyone make their own private health insurance arrangements but you end up with the American system where healthcare costs double that in Britain and life expectancy is shorter.
It seems a good idea to put the BBC behind a paywall until you think of the consequences. If we do many of the type of beloved BBC programmes of the past 50 years will simply not be produced and British culture and life will be diminished.
@Michael 1 – You also missed that much of the original formats and content the BBC produces, gets sold around the world; these revenues subsidising the BBC and the licence fee.
Personally, I see no reason why the BBC should not be able to charge a subscription for the iPlayer service (ie. remove the iPlayer service from the constraints of the TV Licence), allowing it to be opened up to international subscriptions.
@Dilettante Eye I’ve found the best way to shut the ‘Grey Berserkers’ up, is to remind them that they voted for it!
This specific demographic typically supported Brexit, UKIP, Boris…
It is the Brexit supporting Conservatives who took away the over 75’s free TV licence, dumping their mess on the BBC; it is the BBC who is now funding the free licence for the over 75’s on pension credit…
“It is the Brexit supporting Conservatives who took away the over 75’s free TV licence,”
No it isn’t.
The government handed that decision to the BBC as part of the last financial settlement. It is the BBC and their inability to manage their budget, who have foolishly decided to ‘take on’ the greys.
Bad mistake, the consequences of which the BBC will regret.
@Roland
Yes but profits on international sales etc. are a relatively small proportion of the BBC’s total income. About £200 million or 5% on an income of approaching £4,000 million. Channels such as BBC America are available as part of on demand packages.
As it happens the BBC took the commercial decision to close down the paid for international version of iPlayer on the basis that it was more profitable to do other things such as a country by country approach as part of other packages.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32718259
@Dilettante Eye – Oh dear you seem to have deeply drunk the Government kool-aid…
The free TV license was funded by the Government (out of general taxation), not the BBC from it’s slice of the TV Licence revenues.
It was the Government who decided to discontinue the funding of the free TV license (out of general taxation), refused to increase the BBC’s slice of the TV licence revenues accordingly, and then dumped the responsibility for sorting out the inevitable mess on the BBC…
It is worth remembering that the BBC is much thought of in the world and so helps the standing and influence of Britain. The World Service used to be paid for by the Foreign Office but the government transferred the cost to the BBC. A governor in a part of Guinea, at that time a nasty dictatorship, said that he relied on the BBC to get any proper news. After the cost was moved to the BBC it could not cover much of Europe including some ex communist countries, where people used to listen to it in spite of the danger. It did not make a sensible economy for the government
If the world needs a service it can get its own. None of this influence does us any good at all. Scores of nations would never dream of running such a thing and still thrive.
It is just us, and desperate craving to be seen as the world’s rich and magnanimous uncle that leads us to strut around the globe instead of fixing our own collapsing country.
We listen to Classic FM a lot, but when an advert or government announcement comes on we switch to BBC Radio 3. Both are preset channels.
Yesterday we watched BBC2 all evening, ending with Vienna Blood.
The BBC has an amazing backlog. Two views of the Dunkirk escape were fascinating. Hitler did not make a mistake in stopping the panzers, the climate and weather were extremely unsuitable, so he lost the military argument to Germany/s professional soldiers before winning the political argument and restarting the attack. There were three myths, one British, one French and one German, all wartime propaganda, not accepted by modern historians of their own nationality.
Imagine attending a Chelsea flower Show without meeting Chelsea Clinton’s parents. You get to talk to an exhibitor who has several gold medals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Klein.
The BBC’s store of highlights show her giving a tip suitable for this time of year in this weather and for female farmers in many countries.
Plant the sweet corn first. When you are confident that there will be no more frosts plant a runner bean seed alongside each sweetcorn to climb. The roots will put nitrogen into the soil. Thirdly plant squashes. Their large leaves will provide shade and help to conserve moisture.
The technique is known as the three sisters and was broadcast in a programme that some of the above will not have chosen to watch.
They also broadcast repeats of previous cup finals and world cup semifinals.
In tennis ask yourself who won the Olympics men’s singles in Brazil against whom?
Who partnered the top woman at Wimbledon in the doubles, by popular demand, while both players were unfit?