# Who would like to abolish the BBC Licence fee?



## weltweit (May 10, 2019)

For the sake of argument, rather than paying for receiving TV, any TV, not just the BBC, (in fact paying just for owning a TV) instead the BBC all their output - TV - Radio and - web would have to be funded by advertising, product placement and sponsorship, this shouldn't be hard as their output is watched and listened to in high numbers. 

So for the sake of argument: Who would like to abolish the BBC Licence fee?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

Pretty narked off atm that they're butchering Late Junction. Costs pennies to make compared to all the star-wages bullshit on TV that I don't give a shit about. You don't need a licence for radio, mind. BBC is very shit and self-serving in many ways, but the alternative would be even worse.


----------



## Supine (May 10, 2019)

All those voting options but still no choice for happy how things are. Science fail!!!


----------



## Ranbay (May 10, 2019)

Don't watch any live TV in the house, we have no freeview or sky/virgin box.



I torrnet everything and watch it on plex


----------



## joustmaster (May 10, 2019)

I can see the negatives of it. But I'm fine with it as it is.


----------



## Argonia (May 10, 2019)

Happy as things are. Consume a lot of BBC output and consider it worth it. Nice to be spared from fucking adverts.


----------



## Argonia (May 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Pretty narked off atm that they're butchering Late Junction. Costs pennies to make compared to all the star-wages bullshit on TV that I don't give a shit about. You don't need a licence for radio, mind. BBC is very shit and self-serving in many ways, but the alternative would be even worse.



When they getting rid of Late Junction then? It's fucking excellent.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

Argonia said:


> When they getting rid of Late Junction then? It's fucking excellent.


Cutting it to one night a week. 

The BBC cutting Late Junction is a blow for experimental music


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

weltweit said:


> For the sake of argument, rather than paying for receiving TV, any TV, not just the BBC, (in fact paying just for owning a TV) instead the BBC all their output - TV - Radio and - web would have to be funded by advertising, product placement and sponsorship, this shouldn't be hard as their output is watched and listened to in high numbers.
> 
> So for the sake of argument: Who would like to abolish the BBC Licence fee?


mucked up poll, should have been publick

now you can't see who would like to abolish the bbc licence fee


----------



## Orang Utan (May 10, 2019)

Won't vote in it as it's anonymous


----------



## lazythursday (May 10, 2019)

Five years ago I'd be arguing for the status quo. Now, I hardly seem to watch anything on the BBC - there's just so much middlebrow police/hospital related crap and perhaps three series a year I make a point of watching. I'm not sure that the BBC has got worse as such - it's that the alternatives (HBO / Netflix etc) are on another level, quality wise. 

And the news is fucking appalling - give me C4 or Sky any day (I'd never have predicted I'd rate Sky higher than the BBC either...)

So I'd probably radically reorganise it in some way, with some aspects funded by advertising / subscription and others remaining free thanks to (a reduced) licence fee. And allow other organisations to compete for the public service broadcasting cash because the BBC is just frittering it away on shite.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

One thing the BBC should do, as an act of good faith and sharpish, is to arrange for its entire output to be available to all licence-fee-payers all the time. Selling it to others to repeat at a fee/with adverts isn't on any more.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2019)

Abolish the BBC completely. 

(wait till my kids are too old for cbeebies first though, I'm not having fucking Nick Jr. on)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

lazythursday said:


> Five years ago I'd be arguing for the status quo. Now, I hardly seem to watch anything on the BBC - there's just so much middlebrow police/hospital related crap and perhaps three series a year I make a point of watching. I'm not sure that the BBC has got worse as such - it's that the alternatives (HBO / Netflix etc) are on another level, quality wise.
> 
> And the news is fucking appalling - give me C4 or Sky any day (I'd never have predicted I'd rate Sky higher than the BBC either...)
> 
> So I'd probably radically reorganise it in some way, with some aspects funded by advertising / subscription and others remaining free thanks to (a reduced) licence fee. And allow other organisations to compete for the public service broadcasting cash because the BBC is just frittering it away on shite.


the ideal is supposed to be that they cater for everyone. They're nowhere near as good at this as I think they think they are. BBC4, for instance, is mostly full of shite. Where are the genuinely edgy or experimental plays/films, the _actually intelligent_ science shows, the avant garde music shows, etc. They do a tiny, tiny, tiny bit of all those things on Radio 3, and they've decided to even cut that back.

Best bit of the BBC is the World Service, and that's a govt propaganda arm funded directly by the Foreign Office.


----------



## andysays (May 10, 2019)

Abolish the licence fee and fund the BBC from general taxation


----------



## pogofish (May 10, 2019)

Is it that long since we last had a licence fee thread..?


----------



## andysays (May 10, 2019)

pogofish said:


> Is it that long since we last had a licence fee thread..?


Nothing but repeats these days...


----------



## weltweit (May 10, 2019)

pogofish said:


> Is it that long since we last had a licence fee thread..?


About 10 years, if the warnings while i was preparing this thread are to be believed.


----------



## weltweit (May 10, 2019)

andysays said:


> Abolish the licence fee and fund the BBC from general taxation


I hadn't thought of that option or it would have definitely made the poll. 

Although we would arguably probably pay as much as through the licence it could be a fairer way to pay. For example, at the moment I am a one person household and must pay the full whack even though only one person, me, watches the TV. Another household with perhaps 5 people and possibly three TVs pays the same as me. That doesn't seem equitable. 

Paying from general taxation would be a bit fairer, at least where adult taxpayers is concerned.


----------



## andysays (May 10, 2019)

weltweit said:


> I hadn't thought of that option or it would have definitely made the poll.
> 
> Although we would arguably probably pay as much as through the licence it could be a fairer way to pay. For example, at the moment I am a one person household and must pay the full whack even though only one person, me, watches the TV. Another household with perhaps 5 people and possibly three TVs pays the same as me. That doesn't seem equitable.
> 
> Paying from general taxation would be a bit fairer, at least where adult taxpayers is concerned.


It would be much fairer and would largely eliminate cost of collection and issues of evasion. 

I'm not sure why TV licences were ever something people were expected to buy, rather than being funded from general taxation, especially as the BBC was seen as a public service.


----------



## editor (May 10, 2019)

I don't want fucking adverts and I want high quality content. Obvs, I'd rather not pay anything but how else is it going to be funded?


----------



## weltweit (May 10, 2019)

editor said:


> I don't want fucking adverts and I want high quality content. Obvs, I'd rather not pay anything but how else is it going to be funded?


I think as andysays proposed, out of general taxation could be fairer than the present system. 

AFAICT the BBC likes the licence fee, but I don't know why?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

weltweit said:


> I think as andysays proposed, out of general taxation could be fairer than the present system.
> 
> AFAICT the BBC likes the licence fee, but I don't know why?


It wins a charter, with the fee set, then has a certain amount of autonomy in how that fee is spent. Direct funding from the tax payer would end any kind of distance between it and the govt and any pretence that it is anything other than the govt's mouthpiece.


----------



## weltweit (May 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It wins a charter, with the fee set, then has a certain amount of autonomy in how that fee is spent. Direct funding from the tax payer would end any kind of distance between it and the govt and any pretence that it is anything other than the govt's mouthpiece.


Aha, but does that preclude a ringfenced funding from the treasury with editorial safeguards largely as they are at the moment?


----------



## 8115 (May 10, 2019)

No because I hate adverts.

However high quality programming as someone said upthread is a bit debatable. I enjoy their drama but radio 4 is very patchy and their politics output is really pretty dire nowadays. Even something like The World Tonight I have to turn off sometimes and let's not mention Question Time. Their comedy output is pretty awful too. Basically just drama.


----------



## skyscraper101 (May 10, 2019)

No to the license fee.

Just put all the stuff I don't like such as Eastenders, Dr. Who and Top Gear on a commercial channel and let that pay for the rest of the quality stuff ad free. 

Also get rid of that bellend Greg Wallace.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 10, 2019)

No abolish the BBC option?


----------



## dylanredefined (May 10, 2019)

Scrap the licence fee and every broadcaster now has to share the adverts fee so less money all-round.  General taxation sounds better. Everyone benefits so everyone pays.


----------



## mx wcfc (May 10, 2019)

andysays said:


> Abolish the licence fee and fund the BBC from general taxation


This. I think the beeb is pretty good value compared to sky. I listen to 6 music a lot and when I do watch telly, 90% of the time it’s bbc as I really really hate the advertisements. 

Funding from general taxation takes away the whinging from the daily mail and rows about who pays for pensioners.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

mx wcfc said:


> Funding from general taxation takes away the whinging from the daily mail .


It really doesn't. Especially when there is a Labour govt, you would not hear the end of the whinging about political bias.


----------



## andysays (May 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It wins a charter, with the fee set, then has a certain amount of autonomy in how that fee is spent. Direct funding from the tax payer would end any kind of distance between it and the govt and any pretence that it is anything other than the govt's mouthpiece.


I've heard that argument, but many people already regard it as the government's mouthpiece, which to some extent it undeniable is. Given the huge increase in sources of information since the BBC was set up, I don't think that's nearly as persuasive an argument as it once was.

And the benefits of switching to funding from taxation definitely outweigh the arguments against, IMO


----------



## mx wcfc (May 10, 2019)

But you never hear the end of whinging now either. 
If we all pay the licence fee, it is no different from general taxation, except that the poor pay more as a proportion of their income. 
At the moment the pensioners exemption is used a a tool to buy votes. 
And the bbc is still right wing biased. 
I could put up with whinging about bbc bias if it actually was left wing!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

andysays said:


> I've heard that argument, but many people already regard it as the government's mouthpiece, which to some extent it undeniable is. Given the huge increase in sources of information since the BBC was set up, I don't think that's nearly as persuasive an argument as it once was.
> 
> And the benefits of switching to funding from taxation definitely outweigh the arguments against, IMO


As long as there is genuine plurality of media, I don't have a massive problem with state media being obviously biased. In a way, the BBC is quite dishonestly biased atm because it pretends it isn't. As I said above, my favourite bit of the BBC pretty much is the World Service, which is directly funded, but that's a bit of a special case. 

I suspect, though, that a switch to direct funding would mean a dramatic shrinkage of the BBC in terms of what it does. I can see both sides to that. I do fear the BBC would rapidly decline if it were to lose the licence fee. But at the same time the licence fee is becoming increasingly anachronistic.


----------



## 8115 (May 10, 2019)

I don't think the licence fee is becoming anachronistic. People are increasingly opting in to the BBC rather than out of, it's competing for market share with things like Netflix, Sky Atlantic etc etc. Sure, if you have a tv at home it's something you have to pay but an increasing number of people watch tv on their computers. Maybe you could change the link to having a tv, so that people can watch tv on a tv without paying the licence fee, but not get BBC channels. Also be interesting to see figures on how many people do use platforms where the licence fee is an opt in, as opposed to necessary.


----------



## weltweit (May 10, 2019)

8115 I like the idea of paying when you watch BBC. 

I only watch the TV on a Friday night and then only BBC1 and BBC2 - and I watch that on my computer more often than not, it irks me that I have to pay as much as people who watch all week and or have multiple viewers and likely multiple screens. 

Pay as you watch / use - or general taxation  that has me interested.


----------



## 8115 (May 10, 2019)

weltweit said:


> 8115 I like the idea of paying when you watch BBC.
> 
> I only watch the TV on a Friday night and then only BBC1 and BBC2 - and I watch that on my computer more often than not, it irks me that I have to pay as much as people who watch all week and or have multiple viewers and likely multiple screens.
> 
> Pay as you watch / use - or general taxation  that has me interested.


That's not exactly what I meant, but it's another idea


----------



## weltweit (May 10, 2019)

8115 said:


> That's not exactly what I meant, but it's another idea


Oh sorry, I must have misunderstood.


----------



## weltweit (May 10, 2019)

Right now I am in a house where they have terrestial, including freeview, and netflix and prime and a tivo type box, yet more often than not they can't find something to watch. The mind boggles. 

And there is no light from Spain, where they have a little bit of a drama followed by 20 minutes of ads, the ads are spaced across channels so people end up watching two dramas flicking from one to the other as the ads come on. TV in Spain is basically broken.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

Fuck general taxation. People who don't want to watch their shite shouldn't have to pay for it.
Make it PPV, and let the cunts sink or swim on their own merits.


----------



## scifisam (May 10, 2019)

It's probably worth it for CBeebies and CBBC alone. They're SO much better than the other channels and I love not having adverts on kids' TV, partly because then kids don't see adverts, and partly because adverts aimed at children are usually really annoying. Nelly fucking Kelly


----------



## weltweit (May 10, 2019)

scifisam said:


> ..
> Nelly fucking Kelly


Who are Nelly and Kelly and why are their sexual antics being shown to children?


----------



## wayward bob (May 10, 2019)

i genuinely love the bbc - the more i watch the youtubes and the netflix the more i appreciate it. i pay the license but prolly don't have to


----------



## hash tag (May 10, 2019)

Some good television, no adverts. Some excellent radio, still no adverts. The website as well. Much happier to pay that licence fee than contribute to sky, to virgin, Netflix, Amazon etc.


----------



## weltweit (May 10, 2019)

You say there are no adverts, but that isn't strictly true, the BBC always has time for plenty of professional adverts promoting their own content.


----------



## hash tag (May 10, 2019)

+ some good podcasts and apps.


----------



## hash tag (May 10, 2019)

weltweit said:


> You say there are no adverts, but that isn't strictly true, the BBC always has time for plenty of professional adverts promoting their own content.



Not shitty ones from gambling sites. Supermarkets, junk food places etc.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

weltweit said:


> You say there are no adverts, but that isn't strictly true, the BBC always has time for plenty of professional adverts promoting their own content.


You can see that that's a different kind of thing, though, no? 

The best argument in favour of the licence fee is the state of state broadcasting elsewhere, tbh. We should be careful what we wish for.


----------



## weltweit (May 10, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Not shitty ones from gambling sites. Supermarkets, junk food places etc.


Indeed, and my preference is that the BBC remain broadly as ad free as it is at the moment. The general taxation route and pay per view options would neither require the BBC to be funded by ads.


----------



## hash tag (May 10, 2019)

The BBC is a fine institution. I have no wish to engage with pfv unless absoutely pushed into a corner.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The best argument in favour of the licence fee is the state of state broadcasting elsewhere, tbh. We should be careful what we wish for.


The best argument against the license fee is "Fuck off. I didn't sign up for it!"


----------



## weltweit (May 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You can see that that's a different kind of thing, though, no?


I am not sure I can. If C4 wants to promote its own content it has to do that at the expense of not screening a paid for ad in its place. The BBC has none of this opportunity cost when promoting its own wares. 



littlebabyjesus said:


> The best argument in favour of the licence fee is the state of state broadcasting elsewhere, tbh. We should be careful what we wish for.


I do like the BBC output, I am not a critic of that, but as someone who is watching the pennies and finding ever more genuine demands on my limited funds, I resent paying a full licence when I only watch - just me - one evening a week and only on one device.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

hash tag said:


> The BBC is a fine institution.


It is if you're a pedophile looking to work in an industry with like-minded people.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> The best argument against the license fee is "Fuck off. I didn't sign up for it!"


Thing is, it's exactly this - that we didn't sign up for it - that gives us the moral force to question it, to demand better from it. This is very far from perfect, of course, but comparisons with elsewhere show how much worse it could be.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

weltweit said:


> I am not sure I can. If C4 wants to promote its own content it has to do that at the expense of not screening a paid for ad in its place. The BBC has none of this opportunity cost when promoting its own wares..


I'm talking in terms of the viewer, primarily. I give little shit about the opportunity costs of C4. They're not trying to sell you anything. And they never stop a programme part-way through to try to promote something else. It's qualitatively different in its effect on the viewer, especially wrt children's tv.


----------



## hash tag (May 10, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> The best argument against the license fee is "Fuck off. I didn't sign up for it!"



Nobody says you have to watch it, or listen to it.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Thing is, it's exactly this - that we didn't sign up for it - that gives us the moral force to question it, to demand better from it.


But it should be an opt-in service. You don't even get the chance to opt out.
The BBC could scramble their signal, like Sky do, and only those who wish to pay for it would/should pay for it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Nobody says you have to watch it, or listen to it.


tbf that's never been a defence when you get done for not paying the licence.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Nobody says you have to watch it, or listen to it.


But you still have to pay for it, even if you choose not to watch/listen?


----------



## weltweit (May 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm talking in terms of the viewer, primarily. I give little shit about the opportunity costs of C4. They're not trying to sell you anything. And they never stop a programme part-way through to try to promote something else. It's qualitatively different in its effect on the viewer, especially wrt children's tv.


Yes, the effect on the viewer is different, indeed.


----------



## hash tag (May 10, 2019)

There are many people on low incomes who don't pay a licence fee. If they didn't get the been for free they would get very little television.
if been went pfv, the remains free Chanel's would probably follow that lead.


----------



## weltweit (May 10, 2019)

What about the income the BBC makes from selling content and formats abroad, how much of their funding does this amount to?


----------



## weltweit (May 10, 2019)

How would pay per view work in the case of the BBC?


----------



## weltweit (May 10, 2019)

I find the Licence fee another not insignificant tax on living. It is not insubstantial.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> But it should be an opt-in service. You don't even get the chance to opt out.
> The BBC could scramble their signal, like Sky do, and only those who wish to pay for it would/should pay for it.


Well this is where technology is making the lf a bit anachronistic. I watch tv on a computer. I don't even own a tv. They have introduced new laws to try to deal with this, but it's becoming increasingly absurd. Watch a film on Sky on your computer, fine. Watch a single second of a football match or tennis match live, and you're breaking the law.


----------



## scifisam (May 10, 2019)

hash tag said:


> There are many people on low incomes who don't pay a licence fee. If they didn't get the been for free they would get very little television.
> if been went pfv, the remains free Chanel's would probably follow that lead.



I assume you mean the Beeb. But people on low incomes aren't eligible for free licenses so I'm still confused.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

scifisam said:


> I assume you mean the Beeb. But people on low incomes aren't eligible for free licenses so I'm still confused.


I'd be all for a concessionary rate. Be worth it for the Daily Mail frothing alone. Benefits scroungers get free tv to lounge about in front of all day.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

hash tag said:


> There are many people on low incomes who don't pay a licence fee. If they didn't get the been for free they would get very little television.
> if been went pfv, the remains free Chanel's would probably follow that lead.


But the beeb isn't free 
I haven't watched live TV in 20 years, but there's nothing I want to see that I haven't seen or can't see. I just choose not to pay for it.


----------



## hash tag (May 10, 2019)

A blind person has a discounted fee as do others in care homes.
BBC also offers programmes with signing and subtitles.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

hash tag said:


> A blind person has a discounted fee as do others in care homes.
> BBC also offers programmes with signing and subtitles.


How very nice of the BBC.
Blind people should get a free TV license, not a discount. The same applies to people in care homes, as they have to share the TV with a room full of people, and fight over which channel to watch.


----------



## scifisam (May 10, 2019)

hash tag said:


> A blind person has a discounted fee as do others in care homes.
> BBC also offers programmes with signing and subtitles.



But that's got nothing to do with being on a low income so I'm still confused.


----------



## pogofish (May 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It wins a charter, with the fee set, then has a certain amount of autonomy in how that fee is spent. Direct funding from the tax payer would end any kind of distance between it and the govt and any pretence that it is anything other than the govt's mouthpiece.



I thought that line became a lot thinner since the DCMS was formed in 1997 and took-over receipt of the Licence Fee before paying for the BBC from its coffers? Which makes the funding operation much closer to a general taxation model than anyone involved might like to admit.  

Plus that the increase in income from BBC Worldwide (formerly BBC Enterprises) which has risen to the point where a full quarter of BBC funding comes from its fully commercial operations.


----------



## hash tag (May 10, 2019)

Would you rather have pay for view, paying a few to a profit making company run by someone like Murdoch, which is what BBC could become.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

BBC Worldwide is very largely a problem, imo, rather than any kind of solution. We should not have to pay/watch adverts to watch old BBC programmes. We've already paid for them with the licence fee and they should all be freely available online - that ought to be made part of the deal of the BBC now that the technology is there to do it. Sell abroad, fine, but don't sell back to us stuff we already own.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Would you rather have pay for view, paying a few to a profit making company run by someone like Murdoch, which is what BBC could become.


That's exactly what the BBC is now. The only difference is you don't have a choice in whether or not you wish to pay the fee, and you have to pay whether or not you watch anything!


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2019)

weltweit said:


> You say there are no adverts, but that isn't strictly true, the BBC always has time for plenty of professional adverts promoting their own content.



Billboards everywhere promoting BBC shows as well. How that can be a valid use of licence payers' money I've no fucking clue.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> That's exactly what the BBC is now. The only difference is you don't have a choice in whether or not you wish to pay the fee!


Nah it's not. I am exasperated by the BBC in many ways, particularly by the way it wastes money paying a few idiots vast sums due to some mystical 'talent' they are supposed to have, but it is very very different from Sky or other for-profit media.


----------



## hash tag (May 10, 2019)

Some other channels are very right wing, have adverts, also sponsored programmes and product placement. On the whole, the BBC is strictly a not for profit, independent organisation.


----------



## existentialist (May 10, 2019)

weltweit said:


> For the sake of argument, rather than paying for receiving TV, any TV, not just the BBC, (in fact paying just for owning a TV) instead the BBC all their output - TV - Radio and - web would have to be funded by advertising, product placement and sponsorship, this shouldn't be hard as their output is watched and listened to in high numbers.
> 
> So for the sake of argument: Who would like to abolish the BBC Licence fee?


I'm torn.

I spent quite a few weeks working in the US back in the 1990s, and was so appalled by a) the quality of television, and b) NPR's relentless solicitation of pledges and donations, that I came back to the UK thinking "thank goodness we have the BBC".

And either I've got pickier, or the quality of programming has declined, to the point that I watch barely any TV (BBC or otherwise now), and am even more disinclined to prop them up with a licence fee when I see how supine the BBC has become to the prevailing government over the last 10-20 years.

But - and this probably isn't even their fault - the thing that turns me agin the licence fee most of all is the oppressive and threatening approach used to get people to sign up to the licence. Within a day of moving in to this flat, I had a thuggish letter from the TV licensing authority that said, in terms, "we're 'avin' you, son, for watching a tell. SIgn up or else". Fuck off. I took a fairly instant decision right there.


----------



## hash tag (May 10, 2019)

AND the corporate channels rip you off encouraging you pay to vote for a performing dog and then use the information collected as a marketing tool or sell the data on, while promoting shut food, products, companies. Want better quality like panorama, question time, art documentaries, historical documentaries or trash like I'm a celebrity, pay to vote for me and we will also sell your data on.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

existentialist said:


> I'm torn.
> 
> I spent quite a few weeks working in the US back in the 1990s, and was so appalled by a) the quality of television, and b) NPR's relentless solicitation of pledges and donations, that I came back to the UK thinking "thank goodness we have the BBC".
> 
> ...


Not to let the bastards in I hope


----------



## Orang Utan (May 10, 2019)

mebbe they should have a subscription-only iplayer for past programmes, so they don't have to sell their old shows to Netflix to stream.


----------



## hash tag (May 10, 2019)

I will not give money to shisters like sky, Amazon, virgin etc. Corporate, greedy, money grabbing, unethical Bastards that they are.
If your ethics permit you to do that, fine. It's Not for me.


----------



## existentialist (May 10, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Not to let the bastards in I hope


I didn't read all those longdog posts without picking up a trick or two along the way, you know...


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

hash tag said:


> I will not give money to shisters like sky, Amazon, virgin etc. Corporate, greedy, money grabbing, unethical Bastards that they are.
> If your ethics permit you to do that, fine. It's Not for me.


So who are you happy to give money to?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nah it's not. I am exasperated by the BBC in many ways, particularly by the way it wastes money paying a few idiots vast sums due to some mystical 'talent' they are supposed to have, but it is very very different from Sky or other for-profit media.


The only difference is the amount people have to pay, because everyone has to pay. At least with those 'for profit' organisations, you get a choice to pay/not pay for the service, and a choice in what you watch if you do pay for it. 



hash tag said:


> AND the corporate channels rip you off encouraging you pay to vote for a performing dog and then use the information collected as a marketing tool or sell the data on, while promoting shut food, products, companies. Want better quality like panorama, question time, art documentaries, historical documentaries or trash like I'm a celebrity, pay to vote for me and we will also sell your data on.



Anyone stupid enough to pay to vote for some shite on the TV deserves anything and everything resulting from their stupidity.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> So who are you happy to give money to?


I'm guessing every other "Corporate, greedy, money grabbing, unethical Bastard" not on his list


----------



## hash tag (May 10, 2019)

I repeat if you want to give money to the likes of Amazon and you have no ethics, that's fine.
Quoted here, one such example of why not to, with thanks to Maggot https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/alternatives-to-amazon.330129/
quoted to illustrate what is wrong with Amazon. 
Would be happy to pay increased taxes to keep BBC free with similar standards to mow.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

hash tag said:


> I repeat if you want to give money to the likes of Amazon and you have no ethics, that's fine.
> Quoted here, one such example of why not to, with thanks to Maggot https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/alternatives-to-amazon.330129/
> quoted to illustrate what is wrong with Amazon.
> Would be happy to pay increased taxes to keep BBC free with similar standards to mow.


Which corporations pass the hash tag ethics test?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

hash tag said:


> I repeat if you want to give money to the likes of Amazon and you have no ethics, that's fine.
> Quoted here, one such example of why not to, with thanks to Maggot https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/alternatives-to-amazon.330129/
> quoted to illustrate what is wrong with Amazon.
> Would be happy to pay increased taxes to keep BBC free with similar standards to mow.


Maybe you're well off enough to pay those higher prices than some of us.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

hash tag said:


> I repeat if you want to give money to the likes of Amazon and you have no ethics, that's fine.


Are you suggesting that people who have no choice but to buy from the cheapest supplier have no ethics?


----------



## hash tag (May 10, 2019)

oh Pickman's model, I am very disappointed with you, sorry for digressing from BBC, remember this.
Should Cadburys remain British, does it matter?


Saul Goodman said:


> Maybe you're well off enough to pay those higher prices than some of us.



Or simply be a little more selective. I have no need for Amazon, sky etc. I come from a generation before they existed. I got my without them then....


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

hash tag said:


> oh Pickman's model, I am very disappointed with you, sorry for digressing from BBC, remember this.
> Should Cadburys remain British, does it matter?
> 
> 
> Or simply be a little more selective. I have no need for Amazon, sky etc. I come from a generation before they existed. I got my without them then....


I come from a generation before sky, et al. I don't buy into the sky bullshit. I don't pay for any TV at all, but I do have needs, and Amazon is usually the cheapest place I can find to fulfill those needs.
It's cheaper for me to buy light bulbs from Amazon and have them posted to Ireland, than it is to buy them anywhere in Ireland. So should I buy one bulb in Ireland or 10 bulbs for the same price from Amazon?


----------



## hash tag (May 10, 2019)

Your money.
I would have difficulty supporting a company with such questionable practices. 
My downfall is petrol, but there is no avoiding it


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Your money.
> I would have difficulty supporting a company with such questionable practices.
> My downfall is petrol, but there is no avoiding it


There's also no avoiding light bulbs, and plates, etc.
Also, there is an alternative to petrol. Buy an electric car, then you won't have to support those loathsome oil companies, but I guess it's your money, eh!
Glass houses, etc.


----------



## hash tag (May 10, 2019)

My only use for petrol is in a car which is essential for work. No car no job no care for people. I don't have £30+k for an electric car, but we digress. I would suggest we continue this elsewhere, alas my bed is starting to call me.


----------



## D'wards (May 10, 2019)

Happy to pay- I get a lot from the BBC.

Plus the fact they aren't beholden to advertisers means they can let things settle and not cancel at first sniff of low ratings


----------



## weltweit (May 11, 2019)

existentialist said:


> I'm torn.
> 
> I spent quite a few weeks working in the US back in the 1990s, and was so appalled by a) the quality of television, and b) NPR's relentless solicitation of pledges and donations, that I came back to the UK thinking "thank goodness we have the BBC".


Yes, I had a similar experience with TV in the states, so many channels but so little to watch and most of it utter rubbish. 



existentialist said:


> And either I've got pickier, or the quality of programming has declined, to the point that I watch barely any TV (BBC or otherwise now), and am even more disinclined to prop them up with a licence fee when I see how supine the BBC has become to the prevailing government over the last 10-20 years.


As I mentioned up-thread, I only watch BBC comedy on a Friday night, I resent the full licence fee when that is all I watch.  



existentialist said:


> But - and this probably isn't even their fault - the thing that turns me agin the licence fee most of all is the oppressive and threatening approach used to get people to sign up to the licence. Within a day of moving in to this flat, I had a thuggish letter from the TV licensing authority that said, in terms, "we're 'avin' you, son, for watching a tell. SIgn up or else". Fuck off. I took a fairly instant decision right there.


I agree, the tactic seems to be if you have an address you must have a TV also .. 

And there are lots of people avoiding it altogether, there are loads of people who have an illegal "magic box" connected to their tv which permits them access to all sorts of channels for free, there is a whole sub culture of licence and subscription avoiders out there, I have seen it in the UK and abroad. People are ingenious avoiding paying where this is concerned.


----------



## Poi E (May 11, 2019)

Stopped paying the licence years ago. We use several streaming services and BBC iPlayer was not competitive, and we don't watch much content from England anyway.


----------



## Sea Star (May 11, 2019)

I would like to abolish the BBC


----------



## weltweit (May 11, 2019)

Sea Star said:


> I would like to abolish the BBC


Why?


----------



## Sea Star (May 11, 2019)

weltweit said:


> Why?


I'm not a fan of state controlled media. It never ends well.


----------



## D'wards (May 11, 2019)

Thinking of the BBC products I've consumed this year and seeing if it represents value,

PODCASTS
Danny Baker
Kermode
Peter Crouch
News Quiz
DID
Books and Authors
A Good Read

RADIO

R6 and R4, TMS and the boxing

TV

Ghosts
Fleabag
WILTY
Back to Life
LoD
The Victim
QI
Frankie Boyle
Partridge
Snooker
MotD
Old TOTP
Norton
One Show (when someone good is on)
HIGNFY
BBC4 Friday night music docs
Killing Eve
The Bodyguard 


Ruddy good value for me - cheap at twice the price!


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 11, 2019)

I think a publically funded broadcaster is fundamentally a sound idea. Funding it from direct taxation would give the government massive power over it and the temptation to keep cutting back on its funding would be a constant - it would make the Daily Mail whingers ten times more vocal.
Also, there is an argument that the quality of the BBC forces up standard in competing broadcasters. However, decision making power in the bbc should be massively expanded - its should be ours, not in the hands of the same old clique of oxbridge twats who know what is good for us. And the fawning over the royals is a constant embarrassment.


----------



## D'wards (May 11, 2019)

I suspect that the reason the BBC is the world leader in nature documentaries is because they are cash rich, and can afford to fund some gadge sitting in a hide for 9 months to get a 30 second clip of an Arctic Fox.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 11, 2019)

D'wards said:


> I suspect that the reason the BBC is the world leader in nature documentaries is because they are cash rich, and can afford to fund some gadge sitting in a hide for 9 months to get a 30 second clip of an Arctic Fox.


I think the strongest challenge to the BBC comes from Netflix, which not coincidentally is now branching out into nature docs. Its subscription model has proved a pretty powerful thing, and its subscription is substantially lower than the licence fee. What the BBC is not very good at any more, imo, is taking risks, giving money to people to make stuff then just standing back to allow them to get on with it. The BBC needs to learn from Netflix or it will find itself increasingly irrelevant.


----------



## hash tag (May 11, 2019)

D'wards said:


> I suspect that the reason the BBC is the world leader in nature documentaries is because they are cash rich, and can afford to fund some gadge sitting in a hide for 9 months to get a 30 second clip of an Arctic Fox.


I am sure a good nature documentary sells. Well, taking in a small fortune. I'm am sure this is the case for many documentaries. Bet people like the Americans suck up all the heritage that the likes of Dr Lucy Worsley puts out there, helped in part by working for the royals.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 11, 2019)

Not owned or watched telly for over ten years, and don't miss it.  TV licensing threatening letters go straight in the recycling bin.


----------



## weltweit (May 11, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> I think a publically funded broadcaster is fundamentally a sound idea. Funding it from direct taxation would give the government massive power over it and the temptation to keep cutting back on its funding would be a constant - it would make the Daily Mail whingers ten times more vocal.
> ..


I don't get why funding it from general taxation would make such a difference. The licence fee is arrived at by negotiation with government departments, and politicians are already vocal when they think BBC bias is going against their particular viewpoint. 

Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to have a ringfenced tax which goes to the BBC reviewable on the same intervals that the licence fee is currently reviewed?


----------



## T & P (May 11, 2019)

I didn't vote because there was not a single option that resembled something like 'I am very happy paying the licence fee at its current price, its revenue should be fully kept by the BBC, and British people should frankly worship the ground it sits on because it is the best broadcaster in the world by far, one of this country's greatest assests, and made so by the very existence of the TV licence'.


----------



## weltweit (May 11, 2019)

T & P said:


> I didn't vote because there was not a single option that resembled something like 'I am very happy paying the licence fee at its current price, its revenue should be fully kept by the BBC, and British people should frankly worship the ground it sits on because it is the best broadcaster in the world by far, one of this country's greatest assests, and made so by the very existence of the TV licence'.


Perhaps for you it is not a significant cost, but do you accept that for many people £150 odd is a significant amount of money?


----------



## Gromit (May 11, 2019)

D'wards said:


> Thinking of the BBC products I've consumed this year and seeing if it represents value,
> 
> PODCASTS
> Danny Baker
> ...


Many of those TV shows were produced by production companies independent of the BBC and then sold to the Beeb. If the Beeb didn't exist they'd have just sold them to someone else and you could have watch them for free (adverts) or via a subscription of your choice instead of extortion with menaces (the licence fee).


----------



## Gromit (May 11, 2019)

The BBC world service is the only thing I'm happy to have compulsory funding.
Only because it's a useful resource to British citizens caught in conflicts abroad. 

Nothing else is an essential public service that isnt available elsewhere.


----------



## T & P (May 11, 2019)

weltweit said:


> Perhaps for you it is not a significant cost, but do you accept that for many people £150 odd is a significant amount of money?


It is a lot of money for some of course, as are many things. And there is an argument to be had about concessions for the worse off. But my point is that the BBC should be treated as an asset to the nation, and those who can afford to pay should do so, and be happy to do so while we're at it, because changing its funding to an advertisment-dependant system would make the BBC utter shit, and no better than other broadcasters.


----------



## weltweit (May 11, 2019)

T & P I think most of the serious suggestions on the thread so far haven't been suggesting the advertising route.


----------



## Gromit (May 11, 2019)

T & P said:


> would make the BBC utter shit, and no better than other broadcasters.


The flaw in your argument:
It's already no better than other broadcasters.


----------



## mauvais (May 11, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One thing the BBC should do, as an act of good faith and sharpish, is to arrange for its entire output to be available to all licence-fee-payers all the time. Selling it to others to repeat at a fee/with adverts isn't on any more.


It can't do that because it doesn't own it.


----------



## Poi E (May 11, 2019)

Sea Star said:


> I'm not a fan of state controlled media. It never ends well.



Corporation controlled media is pernicious, too.


----------



## hash tag (May 11, 2019)

As opposed to advertiser, product placement type of organisation, which simply goes for Garbage targeted at the masses. Never mind the quality....


----------



## T & P (May 11, 2019)

Sea Star said:


> I'm not a fan of state controlled media. It never ends well.


As opposed to privately-owned media by a single individual or family, free of any accountability and enjoying full and absolute control to broadcast or print whatever they please no matter how untrue or deceitful?

Granted that broadcasters in this country are subject to certain controls and restrictions, but the printed media is not and invariably about 90% of our national newspapers are owned by very rich and very right wing families not only subscribing to a near-extreme brand of politics but also hellbent on using their newspapers to manipulate public opinion and even influence general elections or such crucial events for the nation as Brexit. Which is why they own the newspapers in the first place.

Do you think a Britain with no BBC or meaningful broadcasting regulators is in any way better? Have a think about (or do a bit of online research on) how the USA compares with us and what outrageous false bullshit gets beamed into the living room of every American home unchecked.

Unless you live in a dictatorship or deeply corrupt country, a State run national broadcaster is infinitely preferable and less sinister than the likes of Rupert Murdoch controlling it.


----------



## Gromit (May 11, 2019)

hash tag said:


> As opposed to advertiser, product placement type of organisation, which simply goes for Garbage targeted at the masses. Never mind the quality....


You do know that the BBC uses product placement and has even been found guilty of breaking their own rules around how it's allowed?


----------



## weltweit (May 12, 2019)

Another benefit from funding the BBC from general taxation is that the mechanism for collecting the licence fee, which must have cost, can be eliminated, which would be a saving. I wonder how much it costs to collect the licence fee at the moment?


----------



## Gromit (May 12, 2019)

weltweit said:


> Another benefit from funding the BBC from general taxation is that the mechanism for collecting the licence fee, which must have cost, can be eliminated, which would be a saving. I wonder how much it costs to collect the licence fee at the moment?


If it was that important to the nation it could now just be added to income tax whether you own a set or not. 
The licence fee model goes back to the days of one set per 6 households which we've long since passed.


----------



## weltweit (May 12, 2019)

Gromit said:


> If it was that important to the nation it could now just be added to income tax whether you own a set or not.
> The licence fee model goes back to the days of one set per 6 households which we've long since passed.


I think the licence fee is a bit unfair, and expensive to administer, and out of date, I would much prefer general taxation to fund the BBC. 

On the ad model, I accept that it isn't popular and I am not recommending it but I was just at a house of a woman who tevo'd all her favourite programs to watch when she wanted and she just fast forwarded through all the ads in a moment.


----------



## Gromit (May 12, 2019)

weltweit said:


> I think the licence fee is a bit unfair, and expensive to administer, and out of date, I would much prefer general taxation to fund the BBC.
> 
> On the ad model, I accept that it isn't popular and I am not recommending it but I was just at a house of a woman who tevo'd all her favourite programs to watch when she wanted and she just fast forwarded through all the ads in a moment.


I've pretty much fast forward all the ads since Sky brought in live pause. I also fast forward the safety car in F1. In fact I can't think of many things I watch live.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 10, 2019)

Far from scrapping the licence fee, many pensioners are now going to have to pay for it 
BBC News - TV licences: Up to 3.7 million over-75s to pay licence fee
Blanket free TV licence for over-75s scrapped

On a theme, I really think television should be free for hospital patients. It cost quite a bit down here


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 10, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Far from scrapping the licence fee, many pensioners are now going to have to pay for it
> BBC News - TV licences: Up to 3.7 million over-75s to pay licence fee
> Blanket free TV licence for over-75s scrapped
> 
> On a theme, I really think television should be free for hospital patients. It cost quite a bit down here


Should be free for all pensioners and patients.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 10, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Should be free for all pensioners and patients.


Even pensioners driving around in brand new jags, living alone in 4 bedroom mansions with sky satalites on the side of the building?


----------



## mauvais (Jun 10, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Far from scrapping the licence fee, many pensioners are now going to have to pay for it
> BBC News - TV licences: Up to 3.7 million over-75s to pay licence fee
> Blanket free TV licence for over-75s scrapped
> 
> On a theme, I really think television should be free for hospital patients. It cost quite a bit down here


The government did this, and left the BBC to figure out and implement the consequences.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 10, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Even pensioners driving around in brand new jags, living alone in 4 bedroom mansions with sky satalites on the side of the building?


You  have a problem with that?


----------



## Gromit (Jun 10, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> You  have a problem with that?


Not if 18 year olds with no house, no car and no Sky subscriptions can have it for free too.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 10, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> You  have a problem with that?


I do - why not?


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 10, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Not if 18 year olds with no house, no car and no Sky subscriptions can have it for free too.


You think that 18 year olds should get what pensioners get ?


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 10, 2019)

mauvais said:


> I do - why not?


What's your problem ?


----------



## mauvais (Jun 10, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> What's your problem ?


It's a fundamental: public services should be most heavily funded by those who can afford it most, progressive rather than regressive taxation. Why give discounts to the rich?


----------



## Gromit (Jun 10, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> You think that 18 year olds should get what pensioners get ?


I can think of no reason that a pensioner should get it that doesn't apply to everyone else including 18 year olds


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 10, 2019)

mauvais said:


> It's a fundamental: public services should be most heavily funded by those who can afford it most, progressive rather than regressive taxation. Why give discounts to the rich?


Not against that as a general principal . However a) Where does that leave the flat fee for the BBC licence? B) the abolition of the license fee for 75 year olds ?


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 10, 2019)

Gromit said:


> I can think of no reason that a pensioner should get it that doesn't apply to everyone else including 18 year olds


would that apply to all discounts and benefits that pensioners receive or just the BBC license ?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 10, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Not against that as a general principal . However a) Where does that leave the flat fee for the BBC licence? B) the abolition of the license fee for 75 year olds ?


The flat fee means that a single person with one TV and one income pays the same as perhaps a family with two incomes and three televisions. Looked at that way it does not seem so fair.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 10, 2019)

Just realised there are two threads on this .


----------



## mauvais (Jun 10, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Not against that as a general principal . However a) Where does that leave the flat fee for the BBC licence? B) the abolition of the license fee for 75 year olds ?


What's been implemented is a very rough, very poor approximation of that, bringing in means testing for an otherwise regressive tax. Shit though because it's not a sliding scale, not necessarily a good measure, and processing benefits isn't remotely the BBC's job.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jun 10, 2019)

E-mail your MP, ask them for their view, and what they intend to do.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 10, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> would that apply to all discounts and benefits that pensioners receive or just the BBC license ?


How about you answer a question instead of just asking them?
What makes pensioners so special or this service so special to them that they deserve a benefit against it?

There are many specific benefits for pensioners that I agree with (such as winter fuel allowance) that aren't worth the expense of means testing considering how loss of life or physical hardship is a potential consequence. I've yet to hear of someone dying of BBC withdrawal.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jun 10, 2019)

Make Chris Grayling Culture Secretary and he will finance a budget so we all get free telly.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 10, 2019)

Gromit said:


> How about you answer a question instead of just asking them?
> What makes pensioners so special or this service so special to them that they deserve a benefit against it?
> 
> There are many specific benefits for pensioners that I agree with (such as winter fuel allowance) that aren't worth the expense of means testing considering how loss of life or physical hardship is a potential consequence. I've yet to hear of someone dying of BBC withdrawal.


Hurrah for the abolition of free licenses for the over 75s kind of logic .


----------



## planetgeli (Jun 10, 2019)

Gromit said:


> I've yet to hear of someone dying of BBC withdrawal.



Loneliness and isolation have real consequences. Don't be crass.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 10, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> Loneliness and isolation have real consequences. Don't be crass.


This factored into the thinking behind, or at least what was said about, the BBC decision.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 10, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> Loneliness and isolation have real consequences. Don't be crass.


I'm not. Anything the BBC can do to affect loneliness and isolation can be done just as well by ITV, Channel4 & Channel5. What makes withdrawal of the BBC special?

Also 18 year olds in poor rural communities are just as vulnerable to loneliness and isolation. I know this because I dealt with structural funding in such areas.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 10, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Hurrah for the abolition of free licenses for the over 75s kind of logic .


Not an answer to my question.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 10, 2019)

Should probably point out the main reason pensioners got free telly licences...

They vote. In droves.
It was a bribe.

Why wasn't it previously removed?
Pensioners vote. In droves.

Why is it being removed now?
Brexit muddies the voting waters right now. Which topic do pensioners feel more strongly about right now?


----------



## Santino (Jun 10, 2019)

Gromit said:


> I'm not. Anything the BBC can do to affect loneliness and isolation can be done just as well by ITV, Channel4 & Channel5. What makes withdrawal of the BBC special?
> 
> Also 18 year olds in poor rural communities are just as vulnerable to loneliness and isolation. I know this because I dealt with structural funding in such areas.


You really are a horrible person. I feel sorry for you.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jun 11, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Best bit of the BBC is the World Service, and that's a govt propaganda arm funded directly by the Foreign Office.



The Foreign Office grant came to an end in 2014, the government did guarantee a continued contribution for a 5-year period, so it's mainly funded from the licence fee, and will be totally from next year. 

Part of the fee also contributes to the UK broadband rollout, funding local TV channels and S4C, the Welsh language TV channel, and employing hundreds of 'local democracy reporters' that are basically on secondment to local newspapers & based in their offices. 

Only 3% is spent on administration & collection of the licence fee.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jun 11, 2019)

weltweit said:


> I am not sure I can. *If C4 wants to promote its own content it has to do that at the expense of not screening a paid for ad in its place*. The BBC has none of this opportunity cost when promoting its own wares.



BIB - it doesn't work like that, there are OFCOM limits on the amount of commercial airtime, programme promotions are not included in that amount, they are carried in addition to paid advertising.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 11, 2019)

I have remembered that when I worked in local authority managed sheltered housing all the qualify tenants paid just £7.50 for a television.
I think the only qualification for this was they had to be over 60 (some sheltered housing you can be 55), regardless of income, benefits, savings Etc.
There must be quite a few people in sheltered housing around the country who benefit from this at great cost to the BEEB.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 11, 2019)

The main problem I have with the BBC licence fee is that it now looks such bad value.  £12.50 a month versus £6 for Netflix or £6.67 for Amazon Prime (year’s subscription paid in one go, which also comes with other benefits.  Or as a student it’s only £4 a month).  That would be more acceptable if the BBC was of higher quality than the others but it’s not — there’s hardly anything really good on the BBC, whereas the others get loads of incredibly good dramas and films.  The BBC spends a lot of money on lowest common denominator generic “entertainment” and I’m not remotely interested in that.  Its documentaries are dumbed down to oblivion, its politic shows are risible and almost all its comedy content is predictable and dull.  None of that is worth twice as much as its subscription rivals charge.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 11, 2019)

hash tag said:


> I have remembered that when I worked in local authority managed sheltered housing all the qualify tenants paid just £7.50 for a television.
> I think the only qualification for this was they had to be over 60 (some sheltered housing you can be 55), regardless of income, benefits, savings Etc.
> There must be quite a few people in sheltered housing around the country who benefit from this at great cost to the BEEB.


£1 a week in prison


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jun 11, 2019)

kabbes said:


> The main problem I have with the BBC licence fee is that it now looks such bad value.  £12.50 a month versus £6 for Netflix or £6.67 for Amazon Prime (year’s subscription paid in one go, which also comes with other benefits.



Agreed. Although it's worth pointing out only just over 50% of the licence is spent on TV, and out of that is the high cost of both the terrestrial transmission network, and satellite carriage, which has to include all the 29 different regional versions of BBC 1 separately, which can't be cheap.  

 

What does your licence fee pay for? - TV Licensing ™


----------



## hash tag (Jun 11, 2019)

kabbes said:


> The main problem I have with the BBC licence fee is that it now looks such bad value.  £12.50 a month versus £6 for Netflix or £6.67 for Amazon Prime (year’s subscription paid in one go, which also comes with other benefits.  Or as a student it’s only £4 a month).  That would be more acceptable if the BBC was of higher quality than the others but it’s not — there’s hardly anything really good on the BBC, whereas the others get loads of incredibly good dramas and films.  The BBC spends a lot of money on lowest common denominator generic “entertainment” and I’m not remotely interested in that.  Its documentaries are dumbed down to oblivion, its politic shows are risible and almost all its comedy content is predictable and dull.  None of that is worth twice as much as its subscription rivals charge.



Depends what your bag is of course. There have been some excellent art and history programmes on recently. The Equator from the air has been brilliant, not forgetting stuff like the blue planet.
The 21.00 slot on BBC4 on a Saturday night is usually pretty good for drama's; currently showing Inspector Montalbano, which is fine.
I can't compare to subscription channels as i don't have them. Happy with BEEB.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 11, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> BIB - it doesn't work like that, there are OFCOM limits on the amount of commercial airtime, programme promotions are not included in that amount, they are carried in addition to paid advertising.


Hi cupid_stunt, I didn't really mean any regulatory requirements, I meant more that there is only a viewer acceptable amount of advertising or promotion content and commercial channels need to screen ads for revenues during that time, while the BBC have all that time for content promotion.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 11, 2019)

Santino said:


> You really are a horrible person. I feel sorry for you.


I don't get your logic caller.

There is a genuine issue of pensioners being lonely and people are proposing that non pensioners subsidising rich pensioner's telly licenses is the solution and I'm the monster?

There you go lonely person sit indoors with your idiot box. We provided an overfunded poor quality channel for you when you can afford better yourself. Don't go outside. We don't want to be reminded of your existence and engage with you.

That's part of your solution is it?

Fuck you nasty piece of work that you are. 
I've done more for pensioners than the BBC ever has


----------



## hash tag (Jun 11, 2019)

Due to many funding cuts, there are many pensioners who live alone, cannot get out anymore and quite often never see anyone from one day to the next. Many have lost daily contact with meals of wheels, with carers, district nurses etc. Many sit at home with nothing but television or radio. I shall not bang on about them paying a lifetime of tax, national insurance etc. The harsh reality is many "live" a very sad, lonely existence. Do I begrudge them access to the one little bit of joy they have, not for a minute.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 11, 2019)

kabbes said:


> The main problem I have with the BBC licence fee is that it now looks such bad value.  £12.50 a month versus £6 for Netflix or £6.67 for Amazon Prime (year’s subscription paid in one go, which also comes with other benefits.  Or as a student it’s only £4 a month).  That would be more acceptable if the BBC was of higher quality than the others but it’s not — there’s hardly anything really good on the BBC, whereas the others get loads of incredibly good dramas and films.  The BBC spends a lot of money on lowest common denominator generic “entertainment” and I’m not remotely interested in that.  Its documentaries are dumbed down to oblivion, its politic shows are risible and almost all its comedy content is predictable and dull.  None of that is worth twice as much as its subscription rivals charge.


Yep basically this. I don't see the risk-taking. This is the organisation that made Scum (chickened out of showing it in the end, but commissioned and paid for it), that made Cathy Come Home.

There is so much scope in austerity Britain for, well, anything. A drama about an ex-squaddie, Afghanistan/Iraq vet, who ends up homeless on the streets of London. Eg. There could be a thousand other stories. A young Asian person gets wrongly accused and ends up with a control order...  I don't think the BBC would dare make such a thing now.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 11, 2019)

Til death us do part was BBC was risky in its day, could not be shown now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 11, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Til death us do part was BBC was risky in its day, could not be shown now.


Oh they've always made a load of crap. But they also used to take chances of a kind I don't really see now. Maybe I've missed them? But giving the modern-day equivalents of Loach, Clarke, Bleasdale, Leigh, Potter, etc space to create. Do they do that?


----------



## Gromit (Jun 11, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Due to many funding cuts, there are many pensioners who live alone, cannot get out anymore and quite often never see anyone from one day to the next. Many have lost daily contact with meals of wheels, with carers, district nurses etc. Many sit at home with nothing but television or radio. I shall not bang on about them paying a lifetime of tax, national insurance etc. The harsh reality is many "live" a very sad, lonely existence. Do I begrudge them access to the one little bit of joy they have, not for a minute.


You mean the ones on pension credits? They'll still get it.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 11, 2019)

I know a few who are not well off who don't know how to claim benefits etc. Which I would have thought they were entitled to. Sometimes, there are too many hoops, hurdles and forms to go through that they just can't be bothered or give up.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 11, 2019)

kabbes said:


> The main problem I have with the BBC licence fee is that it now looks such bad value.  £12.50 a month versus £6 for Netflix or £6.67 for Amazon Prime (year’s subscription paid in one go, which also comes with other benefits.  Or as a student it’s only £4 a month).  That would be more acceptable if the BBC was of higher quality than the others but it’s not — there’s hardly anything really good on the BBC, whereas the others get loads of incredibly good dramas and films.  The BBC spends a lot of money on lowest common denominator generic “entertainment” and I’m not remotely interested in that.  Its documentaries are dumbed down to oblivion, its politic shows are risible and almost all its comedy content is predictable and dull.  None of that is worth twice as much as its subscription rivals charge.


This argument is a fine pair of trousers indeed, proudly sported, but you might look pretty silly all the same when the belt holding them up eventually fucks off and is never seen again. That belt is a little thing called Netflix's free cash flow, and how they as a company haemorrhage money to be where they are.

Also Netflix now costs £8 a month.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 11, 2019)

Netflix also has the advantage of being worldwide. 150 million subscribers, so their overall budget is quite a bit bigger than the BBC's.

But you don't have to have a huge budget necessarily to start taking more risks. What's the worst that can happen? They commission something that's really shit. Well they're doing that already.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 11, 2019)

mauvais said:


> This argument is a fine pair of trousers indeed, proudly sported, but you might look pretty silly all the same when the belt holding them up eventually fucks off and is never seen again. That belt is a little thing called Netflix's free cash flow, and how they as a company haemorrhage money to be where they are.


It's hardly the fault of Amazon or Netflix that the BBCs business model is shit.
The BBC should let go of last century, and realise that their days of free money will soon come to an end, and not a minute too soon.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 11, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> It's hardly the fault of Amazon or Netflix that the BBCs business model is shit.
> The BBC should let go of last century, and realise that their days of free money will soon come to an end, and not a minute too soon.


It's not about competition, not on this occasion anyway. The point is that Netflix, in its current form, is not a sustainable endeavour either. Neither are the music streaming services, for that matter. So holding them up as the benchmark is somewhat short termist.


----------



## D'wards (Jun 11, 2019)

What else,  if anything, do over-75s get free?

(That everyone else doesn't, if it wasn't implicit)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 11, 2019)

hash tag said:


> I know a few who are not well off who don't know how to claim benefits etc. Which I would have thought they were entitled to. Sometimes, there are too many hoops, hurdles and forms to go through that they just can't be bothered or give up.


yep. Means-tested benefits always miss a big chunk of the people entitled to them. Always. they're a shite way of doing things - costly to administer and inefficient at getting to the people who need them.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 11, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Netflix also has the advantage of being worldwide. 150 million subscribers, so their overall budget is quite a bit bigger than the BBC's.
> 
> But you don't have to have a huge budget necessarily to start taking more risks. What's the worst that can happen? They commission something that's really shit. Well they're doing that already.


BBC has the advantage of being Worldwide.
Too Gear has made the Beeb a mint globally.
We paid for that to be made. Where's my share?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 11, 2019)

mauvais said:


> It's not about competition, not on this occasion anyway. The point is that Netflix, in its current form, is not a sustainable endeavour either. Neither are the music streaming services, for that matter. So holding them up as the benchmark is somewhat short termist.


What about Amazon Prime? I think it costs me about €7.50/month. I only availed of it for the free priority delivery, and the offers that are only open to Prime members, but it turns out I also get free TV, and free music.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 11, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> What about Amazon Prime? I think it costs me about €7.50/month. I only availed of it for the free priority delivery, and the offers that are only open to Prime members, but it turns out I also get free TV, and free music.



I have it, I never watch TV on it though, it seemed to be mostly shit. I've no idea if it breaks even. Amazon as a whole famously didn't for decades.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 11, 2019)

mauvais said:


> I have it, I never watch TV on it though, it seemed to be mostly shit. I've no idea if it breaks even. Amazon as a whole famously didn't for decades.


It's some of the best TV on TV.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 11, 2019)

Honestly it cracks me up.
Housing and benefit cuts (that put pensioners into pension poverty) are what people should be getting emotive amount but no. Threaten a well off pensioner's access to Gardening Time though and wow the thread races off.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 11, 2019)

I can see arguments both ways, but not convinced that a pensioner on £ 168 a week is "well off"....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 11, 2019)

If you want to take more money off rich pensioners, increase the top rate of income tax. Pensions are taxable income.

This is similar to the argument against ending child benefit for higher-tax earners. Universal benefits/allowances are a powerful social good. Take money from the rich in other ways.


----------



## xenon (Jun 11, 2019)

Wingeing old gammon cunts and irrelevant lefty chin stroking dullards.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 11, 2019)

mauvais said:


> This argument is a fine pair of trousers indeed, proudly sported, but you might look pretty silly all the same when the belt holding them up eventually fucks off and is never seen again. That belt is a little thing called Netflix's free cash flow, and how they as a company haemorrhage money to be where they are.
> 
> Also Netflix now costs £8 a month.


That’s doesn’t really change the fact that as a consumer, the BBC’s offering comes across as incredibly poor value.  If I was offered a choice, it isn’t the BBC I’d be spending my subscription money on.


----------



## xenon (Jun 11, 2019)

Srs answer. General taxation firmly embodies a notional state broadcaster in the political relm. Tied to the whim of the govt of the day. 

The current situation with particular regard to it’s enforcement and prophligacy is untenable.

Subscribetion and tax on viewing equipment maybe.


----------



## eoin_k (Jun 11, 2019)

...


----------



## mauvais (Jun 12, 2019)

kabbes said:


> That’s doesn’t really change the fact that as a consumer, the BBC’s offering comes across as incredibly poor value.  If I was offered a choice, it isn’t the BBC I’d be spending my subscription money on.


It's not comparable with the private offerings though either, because they don't typically include the entire package: international/national/local news and sports reportage, commissioning, radio, childrens' entertainment, the whole web estate, non-English channels like S4C, a bunch of orchestras, etc.

The closest thing to that isn't Netflix, it's Sky, and Sky costs the subscriber a fucking fortune.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 12, 2019)

This just hit my in box


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 12, 2019)

hash tag said:


> This just hit my in boxView attachment 174013


How will not watching BBC for one day affect the BBC in any way? They already have your money, and have no advertisers to keep happy.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 12, 2019)

Go away. If it's not one thread, it's another.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 12, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Go away. If it's not one thread, it's another.


It was a serious question. Not knowing the answer is not a reason to be a dick.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 12, 2019)

Worth looking at other countries who don't have license funding for state TV to see if there's anything to learn .


----------



## weltweit (Jun 12, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Worth looking at other countries who don't have license funding for state TV to see if there's anything to learn .


I don't think Spain have a licence fee. Their TV is awful, ad breaks are as long as the programs.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 12, 2019)

I believe if I move to France, I will be obliged to pay 121 EU ... by all accounts even holiday home owners have to pay - it's taken with the property tax so unless you're legally resident but too poor to pay that, you can't duck out of it.

France Television Licence Payment and Exemptions

Perhaps I'll think of it as payment for their excellent radio.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Jun 12, 2019)

gentlegreen said:


> Perhaps I'll think of it as payment for their excellent radio.


That is how I think of the BBC's license fee. I almost never watch BBC TV but regularly listen to radio programmes via the BBC Sounds app. I wouldn't want the radio provision to be affected by any cuts to funding.


----------



## D'wards (Jun 13, 2019)

Those who like the radio should check out bbc4 on Friday nights. Superb music programmes


----------



## hash tag (Jun 13, 2019)

There is also lots of good music stuff on the iplayer, Inc. Glastonbury clips. I expect they will show a lot of this year's Glastonbury, hopefully with Jo Wiley back in the chair.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Jun 13, 2019)

D'wards said:


> Those who like the radio should check out bbc4 on Friday nights. Superb music programmes


This is basically all I watch on BBC!


----------



## D'wards (Jun 13, 2019)

PursuedByBears said:


> This is basically all I watch on BBC!


Yacht Rock this week


----------



## hash tag (Jun 13, 2019)

Have they really got the webcam going already? Glastonbury Webcam


----------



## klang (Jun 13, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> ...


I too saw that arts programme about the 3 point perspective on the iplayer, but no, I don't think it was worth the licensing fee.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jun 13, 2019)

hash tag said:


> There is also lots of good music stuff on the iplayer, Inc. Glastonbury clips. I expect they will show a lot of this year's Glastonbury, hopefully with Jo Wiley back in the chair.



For interest to Glastonbury fans, that haven't got tickets - 
BBC Radio Glastonbury to provide festival coverage on Sounds


----------



## hash tag (Jun 15, 2019)

It's OK, Ben will take care of it. Sorted

BBC News - Free TV licences cannot be saved with cuts to salaries, says BBC
Cuts to stars' pay 'cannot save free TV licence'


----------



## weltweit (Feb 5, 2020)

There is the begining of a debate on the licence. 

Initially it is about whether it should be a criminal offence not to pay the licence fee. More accurate I think is if it should be a criminal offence not to pay the fine that the magistrates court will put on you. 

But basically should people not paying the BBC licence fee end up in prison? 

Wouldn't it be better if the BBC was funded by direct taxation, paid directly without any political interference?


----------



## Azrael (Feb 5, 2020)

weltweit said:


> There is the begining of a debate on the licence.
> 
> Initially it is about whether it should be a criminal offence not to pay the licence fee. More accurate I think is if it should be a criminal offence not to pay the fine that the magistrates court will put on you.
> 
> ...


Ringfencing direct taxation's much more equitable than a regressive tax on anyone who uses a TV to receive broadcasts, and the Beeb's supine behaviour over the last few years surely nixes any arguments about the license granting independence.

If nothing else, non-payment shouldn't be a crime. Evasion doesn't come close to meeting the threshold of a general wrong to society, and practically speaking, prosecution falls hardest on the most vulnerable, and there's a disturbing gender imbalance of those dragged through the courts.

Worst of all, there's an inversion of justice, since it's nearly impossible to successfully prosecute dedicated and clued-up evaders, who make a game of toying with "goons," know search warrant procedure better than most lawyers, and never incriminate themselves. When the most guilty are spared and the innocent and hapless are snared, repeal's long overdue.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 5, 2020)

weltweit said:


> ...Wouldn't it be better if the BBC was funded by direct taxation, paid directly without any political interference?


I boycott the bbc, as do many others.   Fuck paying for it by tax.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 5, 2020)

DexterTCN said:


> I boycott the bbc, as do many others.   Fuck paying for it by tax.


Would you feel the same about a stripped-down BBC, on the scale of America's PBS? Basically the radio stations and BBC Four (perhaps accompanied by a relaunched Three).

Current news operation disbanded and any commercial operations hived off into a subscription service. The BBC repeatedly claim their offerings are great value for money that the public are happy to pay for. Well fine: strip out compulsion and put it to the test.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Feb 5, 2020)

Azrael said:


> Would you feel the same about a stripped-down BBC, on the scale of America's PBS? Basically the radio stations and BBC Four (perhaps accompanied by a relaunched Three).
> 
> Current news operation disbanded and any commercial operations hived off into a subscription service. The BBC repeatedly claim their offerings are great value for money that the public are happy to pay for. Well fine: strip out compulsion and put it to the test.


Sounds perfect.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 5, 2020)

Azrael said:


> Would you feel the same about a stripped-down BBC, on the scale of America's PBS? Basically the radio stations and BBC Four (perhaps accompanied by a relaunched Three).
> 
> Current news operation disbanded and any commercial operations hived off into a subscription service. The BBC repeatedly claim their offerings are great value for money that the public are happy to pay for. Well fine: strip out compulsion and put it to the test.


Ever hear the word thrawn?  🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 

(omg we have a saltire gif)


----------



## Azrael (Feb 5, 2020)

Aye! 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿


----------



## editor (Feb 5, 2020)

I don't want to pay but then I don't want fucking shit advert-laden US style radio or TV. So on balance, I'll reluctantly pay, but will consider not doing so if the BBC continue to be Tory arselickers.


----------



## mx wcfc (Feb 5, 2020)

DexterTCN said:


> I boycott the bbc, as do many others.   Fuck paying for it by tax.


I hate adverts on telly. I listen to bbc radio a lot and the BBC’s telly output is pretty bloody good. Compared to what Mrs mx pays for Amazon telly and Netflix the other stuff I think it is fecking good value. All flat rate taxes are bad but the alternative to the licence fee is adverts. Bollocks to that. The main opposition to the licence fee are evil old ladies who read the daily mail. Bugger them.
(Actually, no, that would be fairly unpleasant)


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 5, 2020)

editor said:


> I don't want to pay but then I don't want fucking shit advert-laden US style radio or TV. So on balance, I'll reluctantly pay, but will consider not doing so if the BBC continue to be Tory arselickers.



And, yet it's a Tory government threatening their future for being anti-Tory.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 5, 2020)

Few programmes I still record I fast-forward the ads, so admit I'm not bothered by 'em. Mostly just stream these days. Most recent BBC drama I really enjoyed was _Gentleman Jack_, which, being an HBO co-production, was BBC in name only.

Hutton ensured the BBC would in future be arselickers to the government of the day. Sure there's a market for their sycophancy, but equally sure it's a lot smaller than they imagine.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 5, 2020)

editor said:


> I don't want to pay but then I don't want fucking shit advert-laden US style radio or TV. So on balance, I'll reluctantly pay, but will consider not doing so if the BBC continue to be Tory arselickers.


Don't you mean Labour arselickers?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Feb 5, 2020)

Azrael said:


> Most recent BBC drama I really enjoyed was _Gentleman Jack_, which, being an HBO co-production, was BBC in name only.



Or alternatively was HBO in name only?


----------



## Azrael (Feb 5, 2020)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Or alternatively was HBO in name only?


Perhaps, although give that it showed no sign of being written by committe, its characters had the attitudes of two centuries ago, and its hero was a Tory so high she'd have made Roger Scruton dizzy, I'd wager the former.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Feb 5, 2020)

Azrael said:


> Perhaps, although give that it showed no sign of being written by committe, its characters had the attitudes of two centuries ago, and its hero was a Tory so high she'd have made Roger Scruton dizzy, I'd wager the former.



That's not being fair to Sally Wainwright, frankly.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 5, 2020)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> That's not being fair to Sally Wainwright, frankly.


Just the opposite, she created an outstanding drama, which I hope bags many more series!


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 5, 2020)

Anyone who wants a service should pay for it.  The bbc is not a public service.  The license fee covers all other 'land based' channels as well, the license fee is to watch any tv remember.  Or record anything then watch it later.

To be in a place where the unemployed, disabled, OAPS and others are forced to pay for a broadcast service on risk of imprisonment is just not on.   

A ring-fenced tax?  Remember your SSP and OAP?  They were ring-fenced.  All you'e done with turning to tax-based tv is overtly put them under government control and pay them directly for the privilege.


----------



## D'wards (Feb 5, 2020)

I watch a lot of stuff on iplayer which works like a dream. 
Adverts really fuck with your watching stuff on itv hub or 4od- especially if you have got distracted and want to rewind or fell asleep and want to fast forward back to where you fell asleep from the start. You can't pinpoint it cos you have to sit through 4 mins of fucking adverts when you stop fast forwarding


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2020)

Not a great fan of much of what the BBC does but I don't think the tories are suggesting getting rid of the licence fee to be altruistick


----------



## Azrael (Feb 5, 2020)

D'wards said:


> I watch a lot of stuff on iplayer which works like a dream.
> Adverts really fuck with your watching stuff on itv hub or 4od- especially if you have got distracted and want to rewind or fell asleep and want to fast forward back to where you fell asleep from the start. You can't pinpoint it cos you have to sit through 4 mins of fucking adverts when you stop fast forwarding


True. They're also free to use: for those who really hate ads, you can pay to remove 'em from All4 for less than 50 quid a year, under a third of the current license fee. The BBC could either offer a similar service, or go subscription only. Even if it followed Netflix & charged £8.99 a month to watch in HD (itself steep for a streaming service), it'd be a substantial saving on the license, especially as many would cancel for several months of the year.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 5, 2020)

They do this regularly to try to conceal the current state of play. Maggie did it just as much. They have a shocking cheek to say the BBC is biased against them after the past election, but it's an important point of denying the actual bias - the usual clowns will say "oh well if both sides complain it must be doing a good job" even if some have been slating it for the last six months. They have no intention of actually stopping the licence fee.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 5, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Not a great fan of much of what the BBC does but I don't think the tories are suggesting getting rid of the licence fee to be altruistic


Of course not, although given the help that BBC News gave them in getting elected, their privatization dogma could prove self-defeating in the extreme.


----------



## hash tag (Feb 5, 2020)

The BBC is not just television, it's also radio, website, world wide broadcasting and forces stuff.
I don't have any subscription stuff, I don't want subscription stuff and would be left with a dilemma of BBC went down that route.


----------



## mx wcfc (Feb 5, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> And, yet it's a Tory government threatening their future for being anti-Tory.


Yes, that is odd.  My view is that the tories always wanted to appease the daily mail reading anti licence fee old ladies, used that as a threat in he election, and having got away with it aere now following through.

if the beeb is in danger, so are we all.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 5, 2020)

FridgeMagnet said:


> They do this regularly to try to conceal the current state of play. Maggie did it just as much. They have a shocking cheek to say the BBC is biased against them after the past election, but it's an important point of denying the actual bias - the usual clowns will say "oh well if both sides complain it must be doing a good job" even if some have been slating it for the last six months. They have no intention of actually stopping the licence fee.


Perhaps: although at the least, given the amount of time in the mags it takes up, they may well be serious about decriminalizing it. Or perhaps they are serious this time, especially with the tech changes. As more and more people stop watching on-air, and TVs go the way of landlines, saving the license fee will become viable for many. Either the government charges a license to have an internet connection, or a new funding structure's gonna be needed.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 5, 2020)

hash tag said:


> The BBC is not just television, it's also radio, website, world wide broadcasting and forces stuff.
> I don't have any subscription stuff, I don't want subscription stuff and would be left with a dilemma of BBC went down that route.


This. I worked on radio, now I work on sport. None of it has anything to do with politics. Both of these things serve millions of people for astonishingly low relative costs, and they themselves are only part of it. It's all under increasing threat not because of some deserved payback on current affairs bias, but because a right wing government hates it.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 6, 2020)

I can’t honestly think of any good BBC TV programmes from the last year or so.  I regularly check iPlayer in hope but rarely find anything I even want to try and those I do I end up disappointed with.  Sad but there it is.  I do listen regularly to R4 but that’s mostly pretty poor too, just convenient and often the only game in town if you don’t want to listen to music radio.

None of that would bother me, though, if I thought the BBC were properly impartial politically and _were_ partial when it came to fact.  But they are the wrong way round.  They weren’t even trying to hide their anti-Corbyn bias in the last election.  But when it comes to things like climate change, they’ll insist on balancing out scientists with cranks until long past the point that even mentalists have accepted the obvious truth.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 6, 2020)

hash tag said:


> The BBC is not just television, it's also radio, website, world wide broadcasting and forces stuff.
> I don't have any subscription stuff, I don't want subscription stuff and would be left with a dilemma of BBC went down that route.



Indeed, comparing a hundred and fifty quid licence to a hundred quid Netflix sub ignores the vast difference in how much content the beeb creates or invests in compared to what’s effectively a middle industry who fucks over producers of content and subscribers.

What I’d like is a single fee sub service but that’s not on offer, instead we’re getting thousands of the fuckers so it’s time to get a vpn.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 6, 2020)

Artaxerxes said:


> Indeed, comparing a hundred and fifty quid licence to a hundred quid Netflix sub ignores the vast difference in how much content the beeb creates or invests in compared to what’s effectively a middle industry who fucks over producers of content and subscribers.


Said this before but not only that, it ignores that current Netflix is built on a massive amount of debt with an increasing lack of an apparent easy way out.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 6, 2020)

mauvais said:


> Said this before but not only that, it ignores that current Netflix is built on a massive amount of debt with an increasing lack of an apparent easy way out.



Modern businesses don't appear to exist to make money, things like twitter and Netflix operate by some nebulous money sink logic.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 6, 2020)

Artaxerxes said:


> Modern businesses don't appear to exist to make money, things like twitter and Netflix operate by some nebulous money sink logic.


Indeed, market cap or something. It appears to be indefinitely sustainable so I've given up predicting its demise but surely the bell will toll for all of them eventually.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 6, 2020)

kabbes said:


> I can’t honestly think of any good BBC TV programmes from the last year or so.  ..


I watch BBC on a Friday night, (the only time that I do watch TV these days) there is Have I got news for you, Would I lie to you, sometimes Mock the Week, QI, and Graham Norton and I find they amuse me at the end of the week.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 6, 2020)




----------



## kabbes (Feb 6, 2020)

weltweit said:


> I watch BBC on a Friday night, (the only time that I do watch TV these days) there is Have I got news for you, Would I lie to you, sometimes Mock the Week, QI, and Graham Norton and I find they amuse me at the end of the week.


These things were okay 10, 20, 25 years ago but they’re so very very stale now.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 6, 2020)

mauvais said:


> Indeed, market cap or something. It appears to be indefinitely sustainable so I've given up predicting its demise but surely the bell will toll for all of them eventually.



I am perhaps being dim, but....  Netflix doesn’t make money??!


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 6, 2020)

8ball said:


> I am perhaps being dim, but....  Netflix doesn’t make money??!



It doesn't because it's spending so much on new content.



> In 2018, Netflix had a free cash flow of negative $3 billion. And they plan to burn through an additional $4 billion next year. You heard that right. That's billion, with a B.
> 
> The company is taking on debt to build out its content library of originals. The plan is to eventually scale that spend down over time as the archive becomes so big that even the most avid binge-watchers can't cruise through it all.
> 
> It's a bold strategy, but so far it's working. As of today, Netflix is the seventh-largest internet company in terms of revenue.











						How Does Netflix Make Money? | The Motley Fool
					

How does the streaming leader turn hits like "Bird Box" into actual profits?




					www.fool.com


----------



## mauvais (Feb 6, 2020)

8ball said:


> I am perhaps being dim, but....  Netflix doesn’t make money??!


There are lots of different accounting measures but "free cash flow" means operating cash in minus capital expenses. Theirs was minus $3.5bn last year. So no.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 6, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> It doesn't because it's spending so much on new content.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There are lots of issues with this plan, economic exposure aside. The back catalogue is valuable but has a declining value, people foremost want new, and you likely continue paying for rights.

More importantly the market is fragmenting with new streaming entrants and people have to decide which of the services they want to continue to pay for. It's a big problem for both providers and consumers but it still continues to happen. Exclusives will further this fragmentation and eventually either a lot of the providers will go bust or we'll probably all be back to pirating. Netflix are more protected from this than some of the upstarts but they're not immune and it's a barrier to growth or the success of this 'corner the market' strategy.

There's also an unknown pressure from actual content creators. It's clearer in music. Eventually musicians and publishers will probably rebel against giving their content to Spotify etc for nothing, therefore the current situation is of its time. I don't understand the TV/film publishing landscape but I wouldn't be surprised if the journey isn't over yet and there's some problems that hatch out of the current model.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 6, 2020)

mauvais said:


> There are lots of different accounting measures but "free cash flow" means operating cash in minus capital expenses. Theirs was minus $3.5bn last year. So no.



Fair enough.  My ignorance there. Seems so many people have it, seems v. well priced for what you get, seems they have lots of wonga to chuck at their own projects, not seen much about an above-minimal level of corporate evil, so I kinda put 2 and 2 together and made 5.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 6, 2020)

8ball said:


> Fair enough.  My ignorance there. Seems so many people have it, seems v. well priced for what you get, seems they have lots of wonga to chuck at their own projects, not seen much about an above-minimal level of corporate evil, so I kinda put 2 and 2 together and made 5.


They take in loads of money, about $5bn in subs, but their shows cost loads of money. For example one or maybe two series of The Crown apparently cost £100m, for which the BBC would have to sack a tenth of its staff.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 6, 2020)

mauvais said:


> They take in loads of money, about $5bn in subs, but their shows cost loads of money. For example one or maybe two series of The Crown apparently cost £100m, for which the BBC would have to sack a tenth of its staff.



I think my ideas about how businesses work are probably a bit old-fashioned.  My goal would probably be to get solvent well before taking on the world.  I’d be freaked out by the idea of having a bit of a bump and not being able to pay my people.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 6, 2020)

8ball said:


> I think my ideas about how businesses work are probably a bit old-fashioned.  My goal would probably be to get solvent well before taking on the world.  I’d be freaked out by the idea of having a bit of a bump and not being able to pay my people.



Clearly they have the backers/investors that think their gamble will pay-off long term, but with ever increasing competition in the streaming market, they may need to change their business model in order to survive.

It's not unlike what Murdoch did in launching Sky-TV, in the early years it saw a haemorrhage of cash from News Corporation funds. and almost took the whole lot down, but he turned it around just in time, and the rest is history.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 6, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> ..
> It's not unlike what Murdoch did in launching Sky-TV, in the early years it saw a haemorrhage of cash from News Corporation funds. and almost took the whole lot down, but he turned it around just in time, and the rest is history.


In its initial incarnation when it was against BSB I think it was, Murdochs operation was in Portacabins while the others blew loads of money on expensive HQs etc. Murdoch got a working system on the market first, he also borrowed so much the banks couldn't afford to foreclose.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 6, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> Clearly they have the backers/investors that think their gamble will pay-off long term,


This is old fashioned thinking too. All you potentially need is a sequence of capital lenders who think you'll last long enough for them to get something from it, not a holistic success, and a sequence of people willing to buy your shares in the belief that they can only go up.


----------



## scifisam (Feb 7, 2020)

Oh God I'm watching a show on 40D for the first time in years and the compulsory ad breaks are extremely annoying. 

One thing about the TV licence compared to Netflix etc is that you only need a TV and Freeview and they're really easy to get cheap or sometimes free (people literally give them away, though having a car helps when it comes to collecting the TV). Netflix also requires home broadband and that's an added cost.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Feb 7, 2020)

scifisam said:


> Oh God I'm watching a show on 40D for the first time in years and the compulsory ad breaks are extremely annoying.


I just can't watch anything on 4od for this reason


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 7, 2020)

Same here, I can't watch anything on catch-up services from the commercial channels. I always record anything I am interested in watching, so I can skip the ads.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 8, 2020)

mauvais said:


> This. I worked on radio, now I work on sport. None of it has anything to do with politics. Both of these things serve millions of people for astonishingly low relative costs, and they themselves are only part of it. It's all under increasing threat not because of some deserved payback on current affairs bias, but because a right wing government hates it.


I can certainly understand the frustration at news and linked departments sullying the name of the entire Corporation. As an insider, how would you recommend the BBC be restructured to put a stop to it?


----------



## mauvais (Feb 8, 2020)

Azrael said:


> I can certainly understand the frustration at news and linked departments sullying the name of the entire Corporation. As an insider, how would you recommend the BBC be restructured to put a stop to it?


I wouldn't have the first idea but I doubt 'restructuring' would bode well, whatever the intent; what you seem to be suggesting would only enable overall dismantling. Priorities to my mind, given the current political situation, would be to much better promote all of the 'other' stuff we do well by most people's estimation, but the organisation is dreadful at talking about itself.

For example this long-recycled diagram is (mostly) true, and to some extent helpful, but it omits a whole bunch of things and pisses people off:



and it's one of the better things the business does in this respect.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 8, 2020)

mauvais said:


> I wouldn't have the first idea but I doubt 'restructuring' would bode well, whatever the intent; what you seem to be suggesting would only enable overall dismantling. Priorities to my mind, given the current political situation, would be to much better promote all of the 'other' stuff we do well by most people's estimation, but the organisation is dreadful at talking about itself.
> 
> For example this long-recycled diagram is (mostly) true, and to some extent helpful, but it omits a whole bunch of things and pisses people off:
> 
> ...



To clarify, by "restructuring," I wasn't talking about breaking up the BBC, but the opposite: changing the Corporation's internal structures to introduce real accountability and put a stop to the News department's antics. For whatever reason, the current Board has been woefully unable or unwilling to put a stop to the political bias infesting News and current affairs, and staff in other departments apparently have no means to bring about change. How can this be put right?

While I've stated my own opinions -- I'd make the vast majority of the BBC subscription funded, with a possible exception for radio and unique programming like BBC Three / Four -- I'm genuinely interested in alternatives.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 8, 2020)

Azrael said:


> To clarify, by "restructuring," I wasn't talking about breaking up the BBC, but the opposite: changing the Corporation's internal structures to introduce real accountability and put a stop to the News department's antics. For whatever reason, the current Board has been woefully unable or unwilling to put a stop to the political bias infesting News and current affairs, and staff in other departments apparently have no means to bring about change. How can this be put right?
> 
> While I've stated my own opinions -- I'd make the vast majority of the BBC subscription funded, with a possible exception for radio and unique programming like BBC Three / Four -- I'm genuinely interested in alternatives.


There's about 19,000 employees so most people, like me, will have no idea about how current affairs broadcasting is actually operated in any way relevant to political bias.

Most of what it technically needs is in place. Everyone in any function is issued with a big brick of a book, the Editorial Guidelines, basically policy on what you can do and say. It's probably public, I'm not sure. If everyone were equally held to account on this it might help. Within recruitment, retention etc as I've experienced it, diversity and equality are taken seriously and it significantly outperforms most private sector organisations, so again there's no reason why there can't be diversity of opinion and background in current affairs. There has been identification of some failings (like 'balance') but not necessarily decisive action, but then this should be no surprise for such a complex oil tanker of an organisation.

I don't know what's feasible in terms of a funding model but I don't like subscription. Public broadcasting is an important public service that should inform, educate and entertain the population, and even an imperfect implementation is better than something designed to benefit its selective subscribers. Lots of decisions, particularly investment, are made with holistic audiences in mind - the viewers/listeners that it _doesn't_ currently have - and that goes out of the window if the remit is merely to provide to opt-in fee-payers. General taxation is one option but this has historically been avoided because it's even more subject to government manipulation.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 9, 2020)

mauvais said:


> There's about 19,000 employees so most people, like me, will have no idea about how current affairs broadcasting is actually operated in any way relevant to political bias.
> 
> Most of what it technically needs is in place. Everyone in any function is issued with a big brick of a book, the Editorial Guidelines, basically policy on what you can do and say. It's probably public, I'm not sure. If everyone were equally held to account on this it might help. Within recruitment, retention etc as I've experienced it, diversity and equality are taken seriously and it significantly outperforms most private sector organisations, so again there's no reason why there can't be diversity of opinion and background in current affairs. There has been identification of some failings (like 'balance') but not necessarily decisive action, but then this should be no surprise for such a complex oil tanker of an organisation.
> 
> I don't know what's feasible in terms of a funding model but I don't like subscription. Public broadcasting is an important public service that should inform, educate and entertain the population, and even an imperfect implementation is better than something designed to benefit its selective subscribers. Lots of decisions, particularly investment, are made with holistic audiences in mind - the viewers/listeners that it _doesn't_ currently have - and that goes out of the window if the remit is merely to provide to opt-in fee-payers. General taxation is one option but this has historically been avoided because it's even more subject to government manipulation.


It's a tricky one, isn't it. On the one hand you have a company who have put themself forward as the de facto source of media, whilst insisting on being the arbiter of the TV license hammer. They've (resulted in) incarcerated people who failed to adhere to a contract that they never signed. People hiding behind their doors, last they meet the license bouncer... Etc.
On the other hand, we have people who don't wish to be bullied into paying for a service they don't use... You set of fascist bastards! Fuck the fuck off and earn your keep, rather than taking single mothers to court, because they can't afford what you think you're worth!

On the other hand... Fuck off and stand on your own two feet! 

None of this was aimed at anyone here... Just a rant.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 9, 2020)

The reason I think the licence fee should be abolished is because it is unfair. At the moment I am a single person living alone with one television and I'm expected to pay the full licence fee.

I am paying the same amount for my single television that a couple with children who are both working and have perhaps 3 televisions are paying. That seems unfair to me.

And it isn't just my situation, an unemployed person on benefits is also expected to pay the full fee when for them any extra expense is going to be felt hard.

I would be quite a lot happier if the BBC was funded through ordinary taxation. It could be ring-fenced for the BBC in such a way that political interference in editorial matters was eliminated.

I rest my case.


----------



## Riklet (Feb 9, 2020)

Id like the BBC to pay a maximum salary of 36k to anyone. Clear out the dead wood and the waste and put all the jobs outside of the main cities and 'cultural hubs'.

Do the work for the prestige and a decent enough salary or fuck off (they could do so much better than trying to copy the other channels). Even managers and IT types could be compensated with holidays and other perks rather than salaries. I dont see why anyone should get rich working there. As for all the celebrity presenters... it's a busted format. Id sooner see the money invested in getting talent from the general public on TV, inspiring young people, making media more accessible and making some decent TV shows (Peaky Blinders, Blue Planet 2, the occasional film and Graham Norton... not seen much else decent for years).

Why should the public compulsarily pay for a load of dross output, bloated salaries and government news? Anyway I dont pay cos someone else has paid... but I wouldn't anyway, not in it's shit corrupt current model. To make it fair, should be either an opt in service, a free service or paid for by taxes rather than the license fee.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 9, 2020)

weltweit said:


> The reason I think the licence fee should be abolished is because it is unfair. At the moment I am a single person living alone with one television and I'm expected to pay the full licence fee.
> 
> I am paying the same amount for my single television that a couple with children who are both working and have perhaps 3 televisions are paying. That seems unfair to me.
> 
> ...


For a while, I was uncertain as to whether the BBC should be a state sponsored organisation, paid for by the taxpayer, but, of course it should. It should be paid for via direct taxation, whilst being controlled by an independent, impartial body.
At this stage of our humanity, everybody should have access to basic, essential services, and, I believe, in this day and age, broadband and TV are about as basic and essential as any other service.
If the likes of Amazon want us to buy from them, they should be paying for all internet access (not just amazon), and if we're having a compulsory, non-subscription, media outlet, then that should be absolutely impartial, and should absolutely be held to account, rather than the way it is now, which seems more akin to the American federal reserve than it does to a media outlet for the people.
Prove your worth, or STFU.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 9, 2020)

I wonder how much it costs to collect the licence fee. There must be some kind of a cost associated with administering it and my bet is that it's quite high.

We already have mechanisms for collecting taxes so if the licence fee was abolished the cost of administering it it would be saved.


----------



## Marty1 (Feb 9, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> Don't you mean Labour arselickers?



Don’t you mean pro-EU arse lickers?

edit: probably the same thing.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 9, 2020)

Riklet said:


> Id like the BBC to pay a maximum salary of 36k to anyone. Clear out the dead wood and the waste and put all the jobs outside of the main cities and 'cultural hubs'.
> 
> Do the work for the prestige and a decent enough salary or fuck off (they could do so much better than trying to copy the other channels). Even managers and IT types could be compensated with holidays and other perks rather than salaries. I dont see why anyone should get rich working there.


I earn more than your arbitrary £36k but I could earn about 30% more not working for the BBC, so this already happens. We do have some benefits that make up for it, mostly it's work/life balance and the nature of the work.

If you want skilled people to produce good products and services then you need to pay them accordingly, it's not a charity. I'm also curious as to who you've identified as being the deadwood and waste, because everyone I work with is incredibly smart, well-rounded and doing a great job, actually much more so than at other major engineering companies.


----------



## Riklet (Feb 9, 2020)

edited my reply out by mistake... can a mod see what I wrote before and add it back in pretty please??


----------



## two sheds (Feb 9, 2020)

Haven't read the thread but I wonder whether abolishing the BBC would lead to a great increase in pay-per-view programmes which would actually push up how much people spend on watching.


----------



## scifisam (Feb 9, 2020)

mauvais said:


> I earn more than your arbitrary £36k but I could earn about 30% more not working for the BBC, so this already happens. We do have some benefits that make up for it, mostly it's work/life balance and the nature of the work.
> 
> If you want skilled people to produce good products and services then you need to pay them accordingly, it's not a charity. I'm also curious as to who you've identified as being the deadwood and waste, because everyone I work with is incredibly smart, well-rounded and doing a great job, actually much more so than at other major engineering companies.



Aren't most of the big salaries going to people employed by production companies anyway? And I doubt that you could impose a £36kpa salary somehow on the actors who pull in big viewing figures on things like Killing Eve that make the company back by deals with the US, if you count them as part of the Beeb.

Including basic broadband with the license fee is a fantastic idea though, like Saul sort of said. Not sure it's allowed by law, but given that license fee payers are paying for internet only channels, it would help.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 9, 2020)

scifisam said:


> Aren't most of the big salaries going to people employed by production companies anyway? And I doubt that you could impose a £36kpa salary somehow on the actors who pull in big viewing figures on things like Killing Eve that make the company back by deals with the US, if you count them as part of the Beeb.
> 
> Including basic broadband with the license fee is a fantastic idea though, like Saul sort of said. Not sure it's allowed by law, but given that license fee payers are paying for internet only channels, it would help.


Pay for 'talent' is not my chosen hill to die on, but you're right, any kind of set limit would be a gift to the competition, who would immediately migrate to commercial entities. In some cases that may be no bad thing, as it would allow new entrants to flourish, but it would always be a conveyor belt as they too would move on.

I don't know a thing about broadcast programming or production, but a lot of time, energy and ironically money is spent figuring out whether any given endeavour offers value for money to audiences. In fact the closest thing to waste that I can see is the effort lost to indecision and self-control, both in terms of activities and layers of job functions, when organisations that don't necessarily have to do that (or do it differently) would just crack on. It's not objectively wrong, and it produces some good outcomes, but it reinforces the inability of the organisation to adapt or move quickly.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 9, 2020)

The BBC recently announced 450 job losses in the news division. Perhaps naively, I would have expected the news division to be below that number to begin with.

Sorry, but extorting money to pay Lineker over a million to present a football programme makes the BBC untenable to a lot of people, me included. Don't forget that they were paying Ross £12m.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 9, 2020)

mauvais said:


> I earn more than your arbitrary £36k but I could earn about 30% more not working for the BBC, so this already happens. We do have some benefits that make up for it, mostly it's work/life balance and the nature of the work.
> 
> If you want skilled people to produce good products and services then you need to pay them accordingly, it's not a charity. I'm also curious as to who you've identified as being the deadwood and waste, because everyone I work with is incredibly smart, well-rounded and doing a great job, actually much more so than at other major engineering companies.



The deadwood myth is one of those things used to justify privatisation usually.

The svelte agile private co vs the lumbering public service.

Because private companies are always efficient and prompt


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 9, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Haven't read the thread but I wonder whether abolishing the BBC would lead to a great increase in pay-per-view programmes which would actually push up how much people spend on watching.



If the BBC are so confident in the quality of their output, being funded by advertising shouldn't be a problem.

What I would do if I were PM with a large majority is make TV either or, either you charge a subscription, or, you show adverts. Not both.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 9, 2020)

I don't want adverts on the BBC.

If it has to remain the state broadcaster in order to avoid adverts so be it.

But my proposal of funding it through taxation would not require it to show adverts.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 9, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> The BBC recently announced 450 job losses in the news division. Perhaps naively, I would have expected the news division to be below that number to begin with.


Naive indeed, or just unreasonable. It's about 3,500.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 9, 2020)

mauvais said:


> Naive indeed, or just unreasonable. It's about 3,500.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 9, 2020)

weltweit said:


> I don't want adverts on the BBC.
> 
> If it has to remain the state broadcaster in order to avoid adverts so be it.
> 
> But my proposal of funding it through taxation would not require it to show adverts.


Yeah well your proposal can fuck off (no personal offence).

Firstly...there's nothing that doesn't have adverts...bbc just has adverts for the bbc.

Secondly...you want it...you pay for it.   The bbc is in no way a public service.  It may _do_ a lot of things but it's main fodder is shite.  You want to tax people for bargain hunt?  Weakest link?  Celebrity masterchef?

I think not.   That shit is in no way taxable.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Feb 9, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


>


It is one of the largest news organisations on the planet though, so that headcount isnt excessive.


----------



## donkyboy (Feb 10, 2020)

It's a fucking unnecessary tax on the poor and everyone. What nonesense to suggest commercial TV cannot put out content as good as the BBC


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 10, 2020)

farmerbarleymow said:


> It is one of the largest news organisations on the planet though, so that headcount isnt excessive.


Why though?


----------



## mauvais (Feb 10, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> Why though?


DGMT has about 10,000 people, about 2,700 of which work for the Mail and related publications, so perhaps you can show your working as to how many people it takes to run a news organisation.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 10, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> Why though?



They have to produce a lot of news content, across TV, radio & the website - including specific content for the nations & regional TV outlets, nations & local radio services, the BBC World Service (radio) in shedloads of various languages, and BBC World News (TV).


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 10, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> They have to produce a lot of news content, across TV, radio & the website - including specific content for the nations & regional TV outlets, nations & local radio services, the BBC World Service (radio) in shedloads of various languages, and BBC World News (TV).



Ah this leftist bollocks of projecting soft power via the BBC World Service.

I would like to drive a Maserati, I don't though, because I cannot afford to. I drive a ten year old Hyundai. BBC take note, what you would like, and what people are prepared to pay are not the same thing.

To add insult to injury, the fuckers are now part of a streaming service, asking you to pay again for things you paid for in the first place. 

The BBCs day is done, and they have brought it on themselves.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 10, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> To add insult to injury, the fuckers are now part of a streaming service, asking you to pay again for things you paid for in the first place.


This isn't actually true, although it may look this way.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 10, 2020)

mauvais said:


> DGMT has about 10,000 people, about 2,700 of which work for the Mail and related publications, so perhaps you can show your working as to how many people it takes to run a news organisation.



I suspect the days of such huge staffs are on the way out.












						List of newspapers in the United Kingdom by circulation - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 10, 2020)

mauvais said:


> This isn't actually true, although it may look this way.



You work for the BBC don't you? I feel that there may be a trace of unconscious bias in your answers.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 10, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> Ah this leftist bollocks of projecting soft power via the BBC World Service.



TBF, the World Service has always been more a government project, just operated by the BBC, but fully funded by a foreign office grant until a few years ago, that grant money has been reducing & ends this year, when it will fully funded from the licence fee. That's not the BBC's choice, that's government policy. 



> To add insult to injury, the fuckers are now part of a streaming service, asking you to pay again for things you paid for in the first place.



They have sold old content for years, early days on video tapes, then DVD, more recently to UKTV (now wholly owned by the BBC), and other streaming services such as Netflix, without doing so, this content would no longer be available. 

I can't see much difference in them being part of Britbox, when it should produce a better return on old content, and profits from the commercial operations get used to keep the licence fee low & produce new content.  

Worth noting, the BBC will keep stuff on the iPlayer for a year before it appears on UKTV channels (with commercials) or Britbox (no commercials), whereas ITV will only offer their stuff on the ITV hub for 30 days.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 10, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> You work for the BBC don't you?


Yes, I told you this.

Britbox is not content you've already paid for any more than DVDs ever were. As a licence fee payer, you pay for the right to watch live broadcasts and, for a period of time, for the same content to be made available on catchup TV. The BBC in turn pays for limited rights on the content that it produces or acquires, allowing it to be made available for typically between 30 days and a year; it often doesn't own perpetual rights. Britbox, which exists mostly for ITV's benefit, is therefore additional to the TVL.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 10, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> I suspect the days of such huge staffs are on the way out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


These are figures for print newspaper. There's the small matter of online.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 10, 2020)

mauvais said:


> Yes, I told you this.
> 
> Britbox is not content you've already paid for any more than DVDs ever were. As a licence fee payer, you pay for the right to watch live broadcasts and, for a period of time, for the same content to be made available on catchup TV. The BBC in turn pays for limited rights on the content that it produces or acquires, allowing it to be made available for typically between 30 days and a year; it often doesn't own perpetual rights. Britbox, which exists mostly for ITV's benefit, is therefore additional to the TVL.


“We can make these shows thanks to the unique way the BBC is funded...”

In terms of the PR war, the BBC laid its own land mine field by telling us all for years to be proud of the content we were paying to make.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 10, 2020)

kabbes said:


> “We can make these shows thanks to the unique way the BBC is funded...”
> 
> In terms of the PR war, the BBC laid its own land mine field by telling us all for years to be proud of the content we were paying to make.


I don't really see the two statements as contradictory. It makes content that may not otherwise exist, and which it can be proud of, but in order to be cost-effective it has to be made conditionally such that it's only temporarily held. It's a shame in many ways that this is the case, not least negating the possibilities for public archive, but I can't imagine you're clamouring to pay whatever multiple factor more that it would cost for outright ownership of productions.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 10, 2020)

mauvais said:


> I don't really see the two statements as contradictory. It makes content that may not otherwise exist, and which it can be proud of, but in order to be cost-effective it has to be made conditionally such that it's only temporarily held. It's a shame in many ways that this is the case, not least negating the possibilities for public archive, but I can't imagine you're clamouring to pay whatever multiple factor more that it would cost for outright ownership of productions.


That wasn’t the message of their adverts though, regardless of the reality.  The message wasn’t, “this is a service you are paying for on a limited access basis.  The message was, “this is _yours.”  _If they didn’t mean people to get that message, they shouldn’t have put it in those terms.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 10, 2020)

kabbes said:


> That wasn’t the message of their adverts though, regardless of the reality.  The message wasn’t, “this is a service you are paying for on a limited access basis.  The message was, “this is _yours.”  _If they didn’t mean people to get that message, they shouldn’t have put it in those terms.


I don't know what this is or when it's from, so difficult to comment. I think e.g. ten years ago the ownership/licensing situation was very different, somewhat more in favour of permanent rights, although I'm no expert. Also, in addition to the economics of rights management, Ofcom were and are another limiting factor on how long things could be made available, for competition reasons, so it was legally necessary. They've only recently allowed 12 months and that agreement itself produced Britbox as a concession.

However, more generally, if you're going to criticise the way the confusing or contradictory way the org presents itself, have at it.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 10, 2020)

kabbes said:


> That wasn’t the message of their adverts though, regardless of the reality.  The message wasn’t, “this is a service you are paying for on a limited access basis.  The message was, “this is _yours.”  _If they didn’t mean people to get that message, they shouldn’t have put it in those terms.


The message to me has always been "this stuff simply would not exist at all without the licence fee". It would definitely be great if it would then be available forever to licence fee payers, but that isn't a simple thing, and I've never felt it was part of it.

We are both old enough to remember the BBC considerably pre-internet-video and it wasn't an issue then.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 10, 2020)

I like the BBC's output, I watch BBC News, comedy and some factual programming. Plus I listen to BBC radio a lot, mainly radio four but also recently radio two when I am driving and bored with R4.

I know the BBC is being reviewed at the moment, even though the licence fee is agreed for quite a few years to come.

Personally I wouldn't like to see advertising, commercial advertising, on the BBC channels. I accept that the BBC advertises its own programmes across its network, but this is not the same as wider commercial advertising.

ITV and channel four etc just don't provide programming that attracts me in the way that BBC channels do.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 12, 2020)

Currently, in Scotland.


----------



## andysays (Feb 12, 2020)

DexterTCN said:


> Currently, in Scotland.



OMG!!!1!

Abolish the BBC immediately 

(I still think it should be funded from general taxation, BTW)


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 12, 2020)

andysays said:


> OMG!!!1!
> 
> Abolish the BBC immediately
> 
> (I still think it should be funded from general taxation, BTW)


I never said it should be abolished, the thread is about abolishing the license fee.  And I didn't think many here would give a shit about the editing of history either.

People who want it should pay for it.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 12, 2020)

DexterTCN said:


> I never said it should be abolished, the thread is about abolishing the license fee.  And I didn't think many here would give a shit about the editing of history either.


An article appears to have been updated with new information & some old irrelevant information has been removed, where's the problem?


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 12, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> An article appears to have been updated with new information & some old irrelevant information has been removed, where's the problem?


The bridge had to close a couple of days back because of the weather.  The tories used this to attack the SNP because it was funded by Scotland (this is why it came in on time and under budget).

bbc scotland yesterday updated a three year old item, changed the headline and removed the expert's statement (that said it would only close in exceptional circumstances...like for instance the recent weather which has resulted in deaths and huge damage, closures all over the UK...that would be exceptional).    

They changed the headline to 'the bridge that should never close',  which they made up, this week, to attack the Scottish government.  Have you ever heard of a bridge that shouldn't close?   Ever?   Think on it.

I think, I'm not sure, the main bbc place in England has a statue of George Orwell outside the building.   He may be crying.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Feb 12, 2020)

I watch sod all BBC and any live telly at all. Don't even use catch up for anything other than Dr who, and I can live without that. If Murdoch becomes the director general I'm 100% pulling out my aerial and ditching the licence fee.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 12, 2020)

DexterTCN said:


> The bridge had to close a couple of days back because of the weather.  The tories used this to attack the SNP because it was funded by Scotland (this is why it came in on time and under budget).
> 
> bbc scotland yesterday updated a three year old item, changed the headline and removed the expert's statement (that said it would only close in exceptional circumstances...like for instance the recent weather which has resulted in deaths and huge damage, closures all over the UK...that would be exceptional).
> 
> ...


Have you actually read this article?









						Queensferry Crossing: The bridge that should never close
					

The Queensferry Crossing was billed as the bridge that would never shut, but it has. So what's the problem?



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 12, 2020)

DexterTCN said:


> The bridge had to close a couple of days back because of the weather.  The tories used this to attack the SNP because it was funded by Scotland (this is why it came in on time and under budget).
> 
> bbc scotland yesterday updated a three year old item, changed the headline and removed the expert's statement (that said it would only close in exceptional circumstances...like for instance the recent weather which has resulted in deaths and huge damage, closures all over the UK...that would be exceptional).
> 
> ...



Have you read the article?

The opening paragraph says, "Before the Queensferry Crossing opened in August 2017, *its designers claimed it would not be closed by high winds and they have been correct.* Instead, an unexpected problem has been detected with ice."

The whole article basically goes on to explain why it's so much better than the old one, which would have been closed on around 30 occasions, compared to once for this one, since it opened.



> *Before it opened, bridge operators said the wind shields should "almost entirely eliminate the need for closures"* and that has been the case until now.
> 
> The Forth Road Bridge, in contrast, was often closed to high-sided vehicles and HGVs.



You paranoid fruitcake.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 12, 2020)

I mean, anyone reading that will surely mostly come away thinking 'interesting engineering problem' rather than 'fuck the SNP', but it takes all sorts I suppose.

I don't want to inadvertently typecast myself as the BBC's U75 shill, but if you're going to have a pop at the news, there must be countless stories where they really did fuck things up good and proper, so maybe find those?


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 12, 2020)

Not getting into it, I was only replying (politely) to stunt, who called me a paranoid fruitcake.  

The commission that designed the bridge was headed by a scots tory.

And I don't 'have a pop at the news'...I boycott the bbc, refuse to pay the license and do without all the related services such as any other normal tv, recordings etc etc.

I've done this for years.  Why should they get to steal it from me through taxes?


----------



## mauvais (Feb 12, 2020)

I mean, I boycott schools by not having kids or the fire service by not currently being on fire, but I don't suppose anyone's going to let me off paying for those, the thieves.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 12, 2020)

DexterTCN said:


> Not getting into it, I was only replying (politely) to stunt, who called me a paranoid fruitcake.



You replied to me, with complete nonsense, before I responded by calling you a paranoid fruitcake, you paranoid fruitcake.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 12, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> You replied to me, with complete nonsense, before I responded by calling you a paranoid fruitcake, you paranoid fruitcake.


Don't worry.  Won't happen again


----------



## chilango (Feb 12, 2020)

Fuck the BBC.

...and if that means fuck television then so be it.


----------



## Humberto (Feb 12, 2020)

They are led by the nose by the likes of Rupert Murdoch anyway. See also: Cummings, Johnson.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 16, 2020)

Its on: 









						No 10 tells BBC licence fee will be scrapped
					

Downing Street turned on the BBC last night — vowing to scrap the television licence fee and make viewers pay a subscription. The national broadcaster could also be compelled to downsize and sell off most of its radio stations.In a plan that would change the face of British broadcasting, senior aide




					www.thetimes.co.uk
				



Downing Street turned on the BBC last night — vowing to scrap the television licence fee and make viewers pay a subscription. The national broadcaster could also be compelled to downsize and sell off most of its radio stations.

In a plan that would change the face of British broadcasting, senior aides to the prime minister insisted that they are “not bluffing” about changing the BBC’s funding model and “pruning” its reach into people’s homes.

The blueprint being drawn up in government will:

● Scrap the licence fee and replace it with a subscription model

● Force the BBC to sell off the vast majority of its 61 radio stations but safeguard Radio 3 and Radio 4

● Reduce the number of the corporation’s national

..paywall, and i dont have the unblocker at work, if someone wouldnt mind posting the rest


----------



## weltweit (Feb 16, 2020)

A subscription would suck just like the licence fee!


----------



## ska invita (Feb 16, 2020)

how can you even have a subscription on freeview tvs?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 16, 2020)

weltweit said:


> A subscription would suck just like the licence fee!



Really? No need to subscribe.

Mrs Sas and me were discussing our viewing habits. It turns out that all that is routinely watched in the household is the dancing program and occasionally Bargain Hunt.

The rest of the time it is the ITV stable for Mrs Sas, and Eurosport or documentaries on satellite for me. We decided that we would not be subscribing to the BBC at all. 

I note that R4 would continue, I used to listen to Today every morning, but since retirement... it is long gone by the time I awake.  The Archers omnibus is listened to, but that is about it.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 16, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> Really? No need to subscribe.


I wouldn't break up the BBC, I like it, I just don't like the licence fee. 



Sasaferrato said:


> Mrs Sas and me were discussing our viewing habits. It turns out that all that is routinely watched in the household is the dancing program and occasionally Bargain Hunt.
> 
> The rest of the time it is the ITV stable for Mrs Sas, and Eurosport or documentaries on satellite for me. We decided that we would not be subscribing to the BBC at all.
> 
> I note that R4 would continue, I used to listen to Today every morning, but since retirement... it is long gone by the time I awake.  The Archers omnibus is listened to, but that is about it.


BBC R4 is frequently on in the background here. 
I watch BBC 2 and 1 on a Friday. 
Then I often watch BBC News last thing at night.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 16, 2020)

weltweit said:


> I wouldn't break up the BBC, I like it, I just don't like the licence fee.
> 
> 
> BBC R4 is frequently on in the background here.
> ...



Is that worth £150+ a year to you though?

If it was on a subscription basis, I suspect that there would not be many subscribers.

Edited to add:

I'd probably use the money saved to put on one of the sports channels.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 16, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> Is that worth £150+ a year to you though?


No, and that is why I want the BBC to be funded by general taxation. 



Sasaferrato said:


> If it was on a subscription basis, I suspect that there would not be many subscribers.


Indeed, a lot of people would use ad funded channels and pay nothing. 
I don't want to see the end of the BBC.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 16, 2020)

mauvais said:


> These are figures for print newspaper. There's the small matter of online.



Indeed.

Consider this though, the carbon footprint is unsustainable.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 16, 2020)

I am increasingly ambivalent.

While the tories are after the BBC for not being biased enough, the way they have toadied to the tories the last year or two has made me much less inclined to defend them.  

I find the BBC doing it even worse than the billionaire owned newspapers - a lot of people out there still think the BBC is impartial which made their propaganda even more objectionable.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 16, 2020)

DexterTCN said:


> The bridge had to close a couple of days back because of the weather.  The tories used this to attack the SNP because it was funded by Scotland (this is why it came in on time and under budget).
> 
> bbc scotland yesterday updated a three year old item, changed the headline and removed the expert's statement (that said it would only close in exceptional circumstances...like for instance the recent weather which has resulted in deaths and huge damage, closures all over the UK...that would be exceptional).
> 
> ...



It did not come in on time, it was well late.

From Wiki: The bridge was first due to be completed by December 2016, but this deadline was extended to August 2017 after several delays.[

There is also a small problem. IT STILL ISN'T FINISHED! Snagging work continues.

It was also not within budget, and could only be described as having been by ignoring the constantly increased 'contingency budget'.

The SNP are not capable of running a one stall urinal.

Children's hospital, signed off as complete, unused at a taxpayer cost of over a million a month, because those fucking muppets had no one competent enough to ensure that the ventilation ion ICU and HDU was fit for purpose.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 16, 2020)

Puddy_Tat said:


> I am increasingly ambivalent.
> 
> While the tories are after the BBC for not being biased enough, the way they have toadied to the tories the last year or two has made me much less inclined to defend them.
> 
> I find the BBC doing it even worse than the billionaire owned newspapers - a lot of people out there still think the BBC is impartial which made their propaganda even more objectionable.



A matter of perception, but to me, the left wing BBC bias over decades is insufferable.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Feb 16, 2020)

I'd miss BBC 4 and the radio stations but that's it really.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 16, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> They have to produce a lot of news content, across TV, radio & the website - including specific content for the nations & regional TV outlets, nations & local radio services, the BBC World Service (radio) in shedloads of various languages, and BBC World News (TV).



Does it though? They screen programs about our poor planet, then fly fifty people to some remote place to show it.   

Perhaps the answer is a single news organisation, personnel provided by all the broadcasters, so a single crew is sent. This would reduce CO2 in a major way.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 16, 2020)

PursuedByBears said:


> I'd miss BBC 4 and the radio stations but that's it really.



After a further discussion, this household would not be subscribing.


----------



## D'wards (Feb 16, 2020)

Radio 2 has the biggest listener figures in Europe iirc. 

The tv would be easy- just do a Netflix type login deal with the live tv option on iplayer. 

Dunno how that would work for the radio though.


----------



## andysays (Feb 16, 2020)

I wonder what the next public service to be switched to "subscription only" will be once this goes ahead.

Anyone applauding this simply because they don't watch much of the BBC's current output is in danger of missing the bigger picture.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 16, 2020)

D'wards said:


> Radio 2 has the biggest listener figures in Europe iirc.
> 
> The tv would be easy- just do a Netflix type login deal with the live tv option on iplayer.
> 
> Dunno how that would work for the radio though.



I don't think it could.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 16, 2020)

D'wards said:


> The tv would be easy- just do a Netflix type login deal with the live tv option on iplayer.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> A matter of perception, but to me, the left wing BBC bias over decades is insufferable.


Left wing bias?  Did I miss all the times they put out programming from the perspective that capitalism is inherently bad and should be torn down?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 16, 2020)

kabbes said:


> Left wing bias?  Did I miss all the times they put out programming from the perspective that capitalism is inherently bad and should be torn down?



Don't expect the recipients of vastly overblown salaries to decry wealth.   Don't forget the BBC were so out of touch with reality that they paid that waste of space Jonathon Ross £12m of license fee money a year.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 16, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> Don't expect the recipients of vastly overblown salaries to decry wealth.   Don't forget the BBC were so out of touch with reality that they paid that waste of space Jonathon Ross £12m of license fee money a year.


If they are in favour of capitalism, an inherently right wing notion, in what way can they possibly be said to have a “left wing bias”?  At best, they are biased in favour of different flavours of right-wing ideas.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 16, 2020)

andysays said:


> I wonder what the next public service to be switched to "subscription only" will be once this goes ahead.
> 
> Anyone applauding this simply because they don't watch much of the BBC's current output is in danger of missing the bigger picture.


It's not a public service.

Let's see what's been on today..

Escape to the Country.  They have a budget of £700k for a nice place.  

Garden Rescue.  It has a Chelsea gold medal winner.

A Shrek movie

Call the Midwife.

Can you beat the Bookies?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 16, 2020)

ska invita said:


> ● Force the BBC to sell off the vast majority of its 61 radio stations but safeguard Radio 3 and Radio 4



There's commercial value in Radios 1, 2, 3 & 4 as national stations, but the local & nation stations will be worth fuck-all to the commercial sector - no way could the current services be commercially viable. Christ, even local commercial music stations have largely disappeared, and are just part of national networks now.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 16, 2020)

ska invita said:


> how can you even have a subscription on freeview tvs?



You would need a set-top box to decode the signal, fairly simple TBH.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 16, 2020)

weltweit said:


> I wouldn't break up the BBC, I like it, I just don't like the licence fee.
> 
> BBC R4 is frequently on in the background here.
> I watch BBC 2 and 1 on a Friday.
> Then I often watch BBC News last thing at night.



So, that's a good few hours of entertainment...



Sasaferrato said:


> Is that worth £150+ a year to you though?



...for less than a pint in the pub, per week.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 16, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> So, that's a good few hours of entertainment...


Yes, I like the BBC, I just want it funded by ringfenced normal taxation. 
My belief is that that would be more fair. 

As I have mentioned upthread, an unemployed single person with one TV is expected to pay the same as a family with two employed parents with three televisions. That isn't fair and for the unemployed person the licence fee isn't a tiny amount, it is the equivalent of more than two weeks living costs. 



cupid_stunt said:


> ...for less than a pint in the pub, per week.


I don't often frequent pubs at the moment, because I can't afford the prices.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 16, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> You would need a set-top box to decode the signal, fairly simple TBH.


That's a big jump from where the BBC is now. Lots of people just have Freeview. Means no BBC BBC for them.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 16, 2020)

ska invita said:


> That's a big jump from where the BBC is now. Lots of people just have Freeview. Means no BBC BBC for them.



The big jump is the proposal to turn the BBC into a subscription service, if that happens, there's no big jump is getting a set-box box to decode a subscription service delivered via the terrestrial TV masts, the service currently branded as 'Freeview', and partly owned by the BBC, same with 'Freesat', also partly owned by the BBC.

People with only Freeview or Freesat will not be excluded from subscribing to the BBC, they will just need a decoder box connected between their aerial/dish cable & the TV input, which would probably be free to subscribers or available for a small fee of around £20.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 16, 2020)

The BBC going to subscription would make it just another Sky / Netflix / Amazon entertainment channel and we would have lost something that I think does have value. 

What is more we would be underway to the deregulated tv system of the USA where there are hundreds of channels but absolutely nothing on .. 

Has anyone experienced US tv? It is awful. 

Or going the ads route, towards Spain perhaps where the ad breaks are as long as the proceeding program, and because of this the quality of Spanish tv is lamentable ..


----------



## Azrael (Feb 16, 2020)

Puddy_Tat said:


> I am increasingly ambivalent.
> 
> While the tories are after the BBC for not being biased enough, the way they have toadied to the tories the last year or two has made me much less inclined to defend them.
> 
> I find the BBC doing it even worse than the billionaire owned newspapers - a lot of people out there still think the BBC is impartial which made their propaganda even more objectionable.


Exactly my feelings. They've* turned on their natural allies, so why on earth should they expect to be defended when their time inevitably came? Frog and scorpion, fellas, ya picked your side, and them's the breaks.

* Yes, News and current affairs are the principal offenders, but the board, "talent" and other departments have done nothing to rein them in


----------



## Azrael (Feb 16, 2020)

weltweit said:


> [...] Has anyone experienced US tv? It is awful. [...]


Commercials are awful, but they're awful everywhere. Most of the best drama comes from America. Yes, prestige shows are a tiny proportion of U.S. TV, but they're a tiny proportion of British TV too (or any nation's TV: most French TV isn't _Engrenages_/Spiral; most German TV isn't _Babylon Berlin_, and so on).

The Beeb do still churn out a lotta good doccos, but sounds like BBC Four will still be around, alongside Radio 3 and 4 (doubtless to be renamed Light Programme and Home Service in short order).


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 16, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> So, that's a good few hours of entertainment...
> 
> 
> 
> ...for less than a pint in the pub, per week.



I can choose whether to have a pint in a pub. The BBC demands money with menaces.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Feb 16, 2020)

Azrael said:


> Exactly my feelings. They've* turned on their natural allies, so why on earth should they expect to be defended when their time inevitably came? Frog and scorpion, fellas, ya picked your side, and them's the breaks.


Because it will be harder to rebuild than repair. If not impossible


----------



## Azrael (Feb 16, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> I can choose whether to have a pint in a pub. The BBC demands money with menaces.


And their outsourced enforcers are so profit-driven that they target the easy, petty cases, snaring those hapless enough to panic and blurt out incriminating statements, while dedicated evaders make a game of goading the "goons," withdrawing implied rights of access, and usually hoping in vain that a squad of 'em will turn up with a court order. It's justice flipped on its head.

If nothing else, decriminalisation should go ahead.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 16, 2020)

Lord Camomile said:


> Because it will be harder to rebuild than repair. If not impossible


Fair point. What would you say to sweeping reforms such as the board, channel controllers and major editorial positions being elected by license payers? Even at this late stage, the BBC could win people back by taking a lead on this, and showing they're willing to change.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 17, 2020)

Azrael said:


> Fair point. What would you say to sweeping reforms such as the board, channel controllers and major editorial positions being elected by license payers?


How would this work?


----------



## Azrael (Feb 17, 2020)

mauvais said:


> How would this work?


I expect much like, say, National Trust internal elections work: members / license payers get given a leaflet of the various candidates and their platforms, then vote, either electronically or by paper ballot. Being the BBC, televised debates could also be aired.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2020)

Puddy_Tat said:


> I am increasingly ambivalent.
> 
> While the tories are after the BBC for not being biased enough, the way they have toadied to the tories the last year or two has made me much less inclined to defend them.
> 
> I find the BBC doing it even worse than the billionaire owned newspapers - a lot of people out there still think the BBC is impartial which made their propaganda even more objectionable.


Yeah, I'm the same. At least the BBC bias is now widely recognised by people who perhaps used to miss it. 

The bits of the BBC that I like most - Radio 3, Radio 6, World Service - only cost a relatively tiny amount (and you don't need a licence to listen), but the likes of Radio 3 also seems the first to face any cuts - see the paring back of Late Junction. 

Ironically, I didn't pay the licence fee for years. Now I do, and I find myself not much caring about keeping the thing it's paying for. 

Most of this is tech-driven, though. Traditional TV will be all but dead soon, gone the same way as print newspapers - like me, lots of people only really watch live TV for sport.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2020)

Azrael said:


> I expect much like, say, National Trust internal elections work: members / license payers get given a leaflet of the various candidates and their platforms, then vote, either electronically or by paper ballot. Being the BBC, televised debates could also be aired.


That sounds bloody awful, tbh. The ideal for many parts of the BBC is not to maximise viewers/listeners - it is to provide value for all viewers/listeners somewhere in the output. As an example, R3's Late Junction isn't listened to by many people, but because of what it is, those that do listen to it often really really value it while finding most of the rest of the BBC's more expensive output of no interest. The BBC's remit is to provide for everyone, and that requires a strategic overview of things that cannot be captured by public votes.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 17, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah, I'm the same. At least the BBC bias is now widely recognised by people who perhaps used to miss it.
> 
> The bits of the BBC that I like most - Radio 3, Radio 6, World Service - only cost a relatively tiny amount (and you don't need a licence to listen), but the likes of Radio 3 also seems the first to face any cuts - see the paring back of Late Junction.
> 
> ...



I really cannot see how print press has a future, the CF (Carbon Footprint) is huge, from felled tree to delivery lorry.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 17, 2020)

Azrael said:


> I expect much like, say, National Trust internal elections work: members / license payers get given a leaflet of the various candidates and their platforms, then vote, either electronically or by paper ballot. Being the BBC, televised debates could also be aired.


What I believe actually happens, at least for DG, and at least notionally, is they interview applicants with a standardised set of assessment criteria tailored around the role and then decide based on a marking scheme as to who's performed best. This should operate the same way as how recruitment or promotion works at lower levels. Any BBC employee can physically apply for the job, which is internally advertised, and no doubt it's externally advertised too, though I haven't looked.

If it sounds insane...


----------



## Azrael (Feb 17, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That sounds bloody awful, tbh. The ideal for many parts of the BBC is not to maximise viewers/listeners - it is to provide value for all viewers/listeners somewhere in the output. As an example, R3's Late Junction isn't listened to by many people, but because of what it is, those that do listen to it often really really value it while finding most of the rest of the BBC's more expensive output of no interest. The BBC's remit is to provide for everyone, and that requires a strategic overview of things that cannot be captured by public votes.


While I don't view internal democracy as any kinda panacea, it would at least inject a sense of legitimacy to the role, and set up another firewall between government and state broadcaster. Given some of the godawful appointments lately (the Twitter stream of the former head of BBC Westminster speaks for itself, then there's the unlamented editor of _Today_), any new process would struggle to do a worse job!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2020)

mauvais said:


> What I believe actually happens, at least for DG, and at least notionally, is they interview applicants with a standardised set of assessment criteria tailored around the role and then decide based on a marking scheme as to who's performed best. This should operate the same way as how recruitment or promotion works at lower levels. Any BBC employee can physically apply for the job, which is internally advertised, and no doubt it's externally advertised too, though I haven't looked.
> 
> If it sounds insane...


Ah, an _unbiased_, _balanced_ recruitment policy.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 17, 2020)

mauvais said:


> What I believe actually happens, at least for DG, and at least notionally, is they interview applicants with a standardised set of assessment criteria tailored around the role and then decide based on a marking scheme as to who's performed best. This should operate the same way as how recruitment or promotion works at lower levels. Any BBC employee can physically apply for the job, which is internally advertised, and no doubt it's externally advertised too, though I haven't looked.
> 
> If it sounds insane...


It sounds about as good as any appointment process, but with a political hot potato like the BBC, public perceptions are just as important as its actual functioning (and even there, as noted above, there's been some shockingly bad appointments lately).


----------



## mauvais (Feb 17, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah, an _unbiased_, _balanced_ recruitment policy.


_Generalising_, in my experience of _public service recruitment_ it sort of is, within its specific context, except it may also produce ridiculous, self-destructive outcomes in a broader context.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 17, 2020)

Stephen Bush reckons they might not get as far as axing all the things they want to axe. But the ambition is there for sure


Is Downing Street gearing up for all-out-war on the BBC?

A senior source has told the _Sunday Times_' Tim Shipman that the government's forthcoming consultation will recommend the abolition of the licence fee, a reduction in the number of BBC TV and radio channels, and a scaling back of the BBC's website.

As Katy Balls pointed out recently, Boris Johnson has long believed that reforming the BBC was a vital first step for the British right, writing in 2012 that if they couldn't change the Beeb, they couldn't change the country.

So we should take Johnson's commitment seriously, rather than seeing it as part of a psychodrama about which of his advisors he is listening to. But just because the Prime Minister is committed to something, doesn't mean they have the ability to make it happen.

Johnson starts with a fairly broad coalition at Westminster around the position that, whatever you may think of its value in the 20th Century, a compulsory licence fee is not an enduring way to fund the BBC in the 21st.

But when you add onto that various political demands, like axing Radio 2, or BBC 6Music, or BBC Four, then you are, inevitably narrowing that coalition. For some people, because commissioning decisions should rest in the hands of the BBC, for others, for the simple reason that their voters quite like Radio 2.

As far as the BBC is concerned, for them, the government is at its most dangerous when the political argument around the BBC is about _what _the BBC does - rather than _how _it is funded. And that's Johnson's biggest problem as far as the BBC goes: he wants to use the argument over the licence fee to change the BBC. But not everyone who agrees with him on the licence fee, even on the Conservative benches, will sign up to a broad programme of reform to its output. Changing the BBC might yet prove _more _difficult than changing the country.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 21, 2020)

In the 1970s, on their decision not to show the Star Trek episode with the inter-racial kiss (and 3 others) the bbc said

"We have no plans to show the banned episodes as we have stated several times before. I am afraid every big organisation comes in for a little ridicule from time to time, but we are a public service broadcasting organisation with great responsibilities, and if after very careful consideration we decide not to show a particular programme, you may rest assured that it is in the best interest of viewers in this country. "

After revisiting the decision in the 1980s  (1980s mind) they said

“You will appreciate that account must be taken that out of_ Star Trek_’s large and enthusiastic following, many are juveniles, no matter what time of day the series is put into the programme schedules. A further look has been taken following the recent correspondence, but I am afraid it has been impossible to revise the opinion not to show these episodes.” 

Inform, educate and entertain.


----------

